Keller Piano Company (Pte) Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title No 1298

• Judgment Date: 25 November 1994
• Date: 25 November 1994
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 165 of 1993
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Keller Piano Co (Pte) Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1298

Defendant

[1994] SGCA 134

M Karthigesu JA

,

L P Thean JA

and

Chao Hick Tin J

Civil Appeal No 165 of 1993

Court of Appeal

Tort–Negligence–Res ipsa loquitur–Whether doctrine applicable–Damage to premises and goods due to leak in pipe–Whether prima facie inference of negligence rebutted

The appellant, Keller Piano Co (Pte) Ltd, was the owner-occupier of a shop space at Centrepoint (“the premises”). A leak due to a pin-hole from the pipe above the false ceiling occurred and water entered the premises and damaged the false ceiling, the wall mirrors in the premises and a piano. Consequently, the appellant brought an action against the respondent landlord (“the MC”) for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under s 48 of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Rev Ed).

The district judge held that the MC owed a duty to the appellant to take reasonable care to ensure that no reasonably foreseen injury/damage would be caused to the appellant. Although the MC had the sole management and control of the pipe, the appellant had not proved that the MC had failed in its common law duty of care as there was no evidence in relation to the cause of the pin hole. However, the district judge held that res ipsa loquitur applied to the case and concluded that the MC had not disproved negligence on its part as it had not provided any plausible explanation for the leak.

On appeal to the High Court, the judicial commissioner agreed with the district judge's decision on negligence but opined that the MC did not have the sole management and control of the faulty section of the pipe as the evidence showed that access to that section of the pipe could be obtained through the premises and no one could get to it without entering the appellant's premises. On the applicability of res ipsa loquitur the judicial commissioner held that it was a question of determining what inference might reasonably be drawn upon an examination of all the evidence. As there were two possible causes for the pin hole in the pipe, ie corrosion or manufacturer's defect, there was no reasonable ground for drawing an inference of negligence against the MC.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, two main issues were identified: (a) whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in this case; and (b) if so, whether or not the MC rebutted the prima facie case.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The MC had the sole management and control of the pipe, including that section which leaked. The MC had the duty to maintain the pipe. While access to the pipe could only be obtained from the appellant's premises, it was never suggested, nor was it the MC's case, that the appellant had in any way tampered with that section of the pipe or had allowed anyone else into the premises to tamper with the pipe. It was also not the MC's case that the pipe could not be maintained at all. In these circumstances, res ipsa loquitur applied to shift the burden to the MC to show how the leak could have occurred without any want of due care on their part: at [14].

(2) In the circumstances, the MC had failed to rebut the prima facie case. There was no evidence to show the results of purported tests determining the acidity of the chilled water in the pipe and to show the steps, if any, the MC had taken to prevent corrosion of the pipe. There was also no evidence to show that the cause of the pin hole was more likely to be due to manufacturer's defect than to corrosion: at [20].

Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 1 WLR 749; [1971] 2 All ER 1240 (folld)

Teng Ah Kow v Ho Sek Chiu [1993] 3 SLR (R) 43; [1993] 3 SLR 769 (folld)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) s 116

Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Rev Ed) ss 33, 48

Cheah Kok Lim (Michael Khoo & BB Ong) for the appellant

Benedict Chan (Goh Poh & Pnrs) for the respondent.

Chao...