Hygeian Medical Supplies Pte Ltd v Tri-Star Rotary Screen Engraving Works Pte Ltd (Seng Wing Engineering Works Pte Ltd, Third Party)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu JC
• Judgment Date: 10 July 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 158
• Docket Number: Suit No 658 of 1991
• Date: 10 July 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1993
• Plaintiff Counsel: Brij Raj Rai (Rajah & Tann)
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 158
• Defendant Counsel: Sara Liew (Abraham Low & Pnrs),Fazal Mohamed (B Rao & KS Rajah)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Rule in rylands v fletcher,Essential factors,Tort,Claim for totally and partially damaged goods and salvage expenses,Whether defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in appointing contractors,Nuisance,Damages,Causing or permitting a state of affairs from which damage is likely to result,Whether single isolated incident constitutes nuisance,Whether non-natural use of premises existed,Negligence,Whether defendant vicariously liable for incompetence of contractors,Duty of care

Cur Adv Vult

A dislodged water hose connection in an industrial building caused a flood which led to these proceedings.

The defendant occupied unit #07-10, Block 20B, Henderson Industrial Park, in which it was setting up rotary screen engraving equipment. The equipment included a cooling system in the form of a water chiller. The chiller was supplied with water through a flexible hose. The far end of the hose was attached to a water point fitted with a stopcock and a smooth copper pipe. The end of the hose was attached to the copper pipe and secured by a ring clip.

Sometime during the night of 15 June and the morning of 16 June 1990, the hose slipped off the pipe. Water escaped and flooded the defendant`s premises and the adjoining units on the same floor, including the plaintiff`s store, where medical supplies were kept. The medical supplies were damaged by the water, and the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant.

The plaintiff`s claim against the defendant was founded on three causes of action - negligence, nuisance, and the principle in Rylands v Fletcher. (The third cause of action was not specifically pleaded, but the defendant did not object, and replied to the plaintiff`s submissions thereon.)

The defendant in its defence denied the flooding of the plaintiff`s premises, and asserted that it had engaged the third party, a competent independent contractor, to fit the connection. The defendant also brought the third party into the proceedings.

The area of work undertaken by the third party was relevant in resolving the issues between the parties. The third party was engaged to install the air pipes, gas pipes and exhaust pipes for the equipment (notes of evidence p 31C), and while doing that, it was asked to connect the flexible hose to a water point. In their statement of claim against the third party the defendant did not plead that the third party supplied or installed the copper pipe. In its defence, the third party alleged that the defendant had installed a smooth pipe when it should have installed a threaded or jagged pipe. It was common ground that the water point and stopcock were fitted by another contractor who installed the water pipes, and the copper pipe was added later.

The defendant`s managing director, Mr Shih Hing Wong, said that the copper pipe was supplied by the third party (notes of evidence pp 31F-32A). The third party`s site supervisor, Mr Khoo Min Kee, denied that, but admitted that he gave instructions to the water pipe contractor regarding the copper pipe. He said: `I did tell the water pipe contractor how to put in pipe with the stopcock on. He said he will put the piping for me. I did not tell the defendant or the pipe contractor to change the smooth pipe to a jagged pipe.` (notes of evidence p 57B-C). On this evidence, I find the third party to be responsible for the fitting of the copper pipe.

On the issue of negligence, the questions raised were (1) whether it was proper to attach the hose to a smooth pipe, (2) whether the stopcock should be closed during the night, and (3) whether the connection had been interfered with.

Mr Shih said that he relied on the third party to supply and connect the hose. He did not know whether it was connected to a smooth or threaded pipe because he did not examine the connection after it was installed.

The third party`s employee, Mr Neo Seng Kiat, who installed the connection said that after he inserted the hose onto the pipe and tightened the clip, he pulled it to see if it was tight, and it did not come off. The supervisor, Mr Khoo, also pulled the hose and found it to be securely fixed (notes of evidence pp 52F-53A).

During the hearing, it transpired that the third party did not do water piping (notes of evidence p 57E). Nevertheless, Mr Khoo considered himself to be competent to attach a hose to a water pipe (notes of evidence p 58B), and maintained that a smooth pipe can be used if a hose clip is applied and tightened with a screwdriver (notes of evidence p 58D).

The third party also called Mr Chow Ngai Mun, a mechanical engineer, as its witness. Mr Chow had carried out tests on a connection using the same types of flexible hose, smooth copper tube and clip used in the failed connection (TP 2 B 1-12 and TP B 1-2). His tests showed that at a water pressure of three bar (which he said was the pressure at the defendant`s premises), the connection leaked, but the hose did not slip, and it did not slip even when the pressure was increased to seven bar. Unfortunately, he did not say how long it took for the leak to develop, or how long the connection was tested before he stopped each test. He concluded that: `A connection of a hose to a smooth pipe with a clip is sufficient to withstand normal water pressure` and that `I am certain if the copper pipe and flexible hose are properly tightened, it could not slip off` (notes of evidence pp 63F and 64B). Mr Chow was asked about the leak and its effect. He agreed that on the night and in the morning of 15 and 16 June, the connection could have leaked, and the leak became progressively bigger before the hose slipped off. He also agreed that such a condition was not static or stable (notes of evidence pp 66F-67B).

Mr Loh Wan Sern, a surveyor, gave evidence on this issue on behalf of the defendant. He said that the copper pipe used was of soft copper which may deform or flatten if the clip is over-tightened (notes of evidence p 48E) and he was of the view that a serrated pipe should have been used. I placed no weight on his opinion because firstly, he had not conducted any tests to support his conclusion, secondly, he admitted to having no experience with water pressure, and thirdly, he did not state any basis which would qualify him to give any admissible opinion on the issue. I also disregarded the evidence of Mr Pang Soon Guan, another loss adjustor, because he did not see the original connection, did not conduct any tests, and was not qualified to give opinion evidence on the issue.

On the evidence, I find that the use of the smooth copper pipe and clip was inadequate. From Mr Chow`s tests, the connection will leak even if the clip is properly tightened. A leaking connection cannot be satisfactory by the fact of the leak itself and because a leak, if undetected and unchecked,...