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

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu JC
• Judgment Date: 10 July 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 158
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 158
• 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
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Sara Liew (Abraham Low & Pnrs),Fazal Mohamed (B Rao & KS Rajah)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Brij Raj Rai (Rajah & Tann)
• Docket Number: Suit No 658 of 1991
• Date: 10 July 1993

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...