Lim Chin Yok Co Ltd v Malayan Insurance Co Inc

• Judge: T Kulasekaram J
• Judgment Date: 28 November 1974
• Neutral Citation: [1974] SGCA 10
• Citation: [1974] SGCA 10
• Defendant Counsel: James C Chen (Laycock & Ong)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: HE Cashin and CR Rajah (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Date: 28 November 1974
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 40 of 1973
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Ambiguity in policy terms,Construction of insurance policy,Insurance,Condition in policy repugnant to commercial purpose of contract,Liability insurance,Application of contra proferentes doctrine

In this case the plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss and expense occasioned by the negligence of the defendants in the maintenance of a piling frame.

In 1968 the defendants had a contract with the Ministry of the Interior and Defence to drive piles into the ground for the building of a retaining sea wall at Kallang. The defendants hired a piling frame from another contractor and they sub-contracted with one Pareed Kunju for the supply of labour to operate the piling frame. Pareed Kunju was to be paid according to the extent of the piles driven into the ground. The piles were cast at the site by another sub-contractor of the defendants and supplied to Pareed Kunju for him to cause them to be driven into the ground. The defendants took out a policy of insurance with the Malayan Insurance Co Inc the third party in these proceedings, to cover accidents at the site.

The plaintiff was one of the labourers supplied by Pareed Kunju to the defendants to work at the work site. It was his duty to work an engine situated at the base of the piling machine which engine pulled a wire rope which ascended to the top of the said piling machine where it went round a pulley wheel fixed to the top of the piling machine and then descended to the hammer which drove in the pile which was to be driven into the ground by the piling machine. By means of the engine, the plaintiff raised the hammer of the piling machine a few feet and then released the power to allow the hammer to drop and thereafter again caused the engine to pull on the wire rope to lift the hammer for a further drop and so on.

On 2 April 1969 while the plaintiff was doing the work which has been described, the pulley wheel at the top of the piling frame, over which the said wire rope went, broke and part of the wheel fell and struck the plaintiff who sustained very severe injuries.

The defendants denied liability and in turn claimed that they were entitled under the said policy of insurance to be indemnified by the third party to the full amount of all compensation and costs and expenses incurred in the defence of this action. The third party denied liability on the ground, as alleged in their defence, that the plaintiff was not in the direct employ of the defendants at the material time. The third party also denied liability on the ground that it was a condition of the contract of insurance that the defendants would take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and that the defendants were in breach thereof.

The facts of the case were not in dispute. According to their contract with the Ministry of the Interior and Defence the defendants had to construct a sea wall 460 feet in length involving reinforced concrete sheet piles. Their work was supervised by an engineer of the Public Works Department. The defendants were given possession of the site and they procured a piling frame from another contractor and made arrangements with another contractor to fabricate the piles at the site. Then they arranged with Pareed Kunju for the supply of labour by him to operate the piling machine and complete the piling work. All that Pareed Kunju contracted with the defendants was the `supply of labour`. The defendants` foreman supervised the piling work, gave orders to Pareed Kunju and his men as to how the work was to be done, instructed Pareed Kunju as to where the piling frame was to be placed and where the piles were to be driven. The only interest Pareed Kunju had in the piles was that he was to be paid by the foot length of the piles driven. The defendants supplied him the piling frame, the piles and oil for the engine of the piling frame.

The learned trial judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed against the defendants. He accordingly...