Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 26 September 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 58 |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 58 |
Published date | 30 September 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | N Sreenivasan SC, Lim Jie and Jason Lim (Straits Law Practice LLC), and Tan Cheow Hin (CH Partners) |
Defendant Counsel | Os Agarwal and Raymond Wong (Wang Xukuan) (Wong Thomas & Leong) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 99 of 2016 |
Hearing Date | 02 March 2017 |
Date | 26 September 2017 |
Subject Matter | Vicarious liability,Negligence,Independent contractors,Non-delegable duties,Tort,Breach of duty |
This was an appeal against the decision of the learned judicial commissioner (“the Judge”) who dismissed the appellants’ claim against the respondents for damage to their property. The damage was the result of demolition works carried out by a contractor on the respondents’ premises. It was not disputed that the contractor had been negligent. The question was whether the respondents too were liable. The Judge’s decision is reported as
After hearing the parties, we ruled against the appellants on all three issues and dismissed the appeal. In the course of the arguments, it was suggested that the doctrine of ultra-hazardous acts (assuming it is recognised as part of our law) should be subsumed under the general law of negligence in Singapore instead of being analysed as a separate and independent basis for imposing liability. We deal with this issue and also set out the detailed reasons for our decision in this judgment.
Background factsThe parties own neighbouring properties located along a slope. The appellants’ house is the lower property: the ground level of their house is 2m lower than the ground level of the respondents’ house, which lies further up the slope. The building lines of the two houses are about 6m apart, with the two properties separated by a wall located on the boundary between the two plots (“the boundary wall”).
The respondents purchased their property in 2010 intending to demolish the existing house there and build another in its place. The respondents hired Esthetix Design Pte Ltd (“Esthetix”), a locally incorporated company holding a Class 2 General Builder’s Licence from the Building and Construction Authority (“the BCA”), to carry out the required demolition and reconstruction works. Esthetix was appointed on a “turnkey” basis, meaning that as the main contractor, it assumed carriage of the entire project and was contractually responsible to the respondents for both demolishing the existing house on the property as well as designing and building the new house. To that end, it was to engage such subcontractors and professional consultants and apply for such approvals as might be required. It was put to us by the appellants that this differed from the “traditional approach”, under which the owner would engage a team of professional consultants to design the house and obtain the necessary approvals before calling for tenders and appointing a main contractor to undertake the construction of the house. In keeping with the arrangement in this case, Esthetix appointed professional consultants to provide it with the requisite architectural and engineering services for the project. It sought and obtained approval from the BCA in June 2011 for the works on the respondents’ property to be carried out.
On 5 September 2011, while demolition works were taking place on the respondents’ property, some debris from the respondents’ property fell on the boundary wall and damaged it. Some of the debris also ricocheted off the boundary wall and landed in the appellants’ property. Among other things, the falling debris broke a number of windowpanes, damaged several air-conditioning condensing units located at the exterior of the appellants’ house and undermined the integrity of the boundary wall.
On 22 May 2012, the appellants commenced proceedings in the District Court against the respondents and Esthetix as joint defendants. In their statement of claim, the appellants pleaded that the demolition works on the respondents’ property were “particularly hazardous and/or extra-hazardous”, and that the respondents were personally liable for failing to “exercise reasonable care to avoid or prevent the damage and loss”. They further pleaded that the respondents had failed to exercise reasonable care in appointing Esthetix as their contractor. In their defence, the respondents denied that the demolition works had been carried out under their “control, supervision and/or management”. Instead, they pleaded that Esthetix was an independent contractor to whom they had entrusted the performance of the demolition works, having exercised reasonable care in selecting Esthetix for this purpose.
The decisions below The decision of the District Court The proceedings were first heard by a district judge (“the DJ”), whose decision is reported as
The DJ allowed the appellants’ claim against Esthetix. He found that Esthetix had been negligent in carrying out the demolition works and was therefore liable to the appellants for the damage caused to their property. The DJ quantified the cost of repairing the damage at $136,796. The liability of Esthetix to pay this sum to the appellants has not been appealed against.
The DJ, however, dismissed the appellants’ claim against the respondents. He found that:
On finding (a), the DJ held that where the vicarious liability issue was concerned, there were two factors which were determinative. First, the respondents had little control over the manner in which Esthetix was to carry out the demolition works on their property. As Esthetix had been appointed on a “turnkey” basis, it enjoyed “significant autonomy when selecting and appointing the sub-contractors” with whom it contracted directly for the execution of certain parts of those works (see the District Court GD at [27]–[29]). Second, it was clear that Esthetix had taken on the project as part of its business and for its own account. Esthetix had entered into contracts with subcontractors in its own name, and had charged the respondents goods and services tax (at [33]–[34]). For these reasons (among others), the DJ held that Esthetix was an independent contractor and not an employee of the respondents (at [35]).
On finding (b), which addressed the negligent selection issue, the DJ held that the respondents had not fallen short of the standard of care expected of them in selecting a contractor. Given that the respondents were laypersons, the following facts showed that they had not been negligent in engaging Esthetix to undertake the demolition works on their property:
On finding (c), which concerned the non-delegable duty of care issue, the DJ adopted the approach of the English Court of Appeal in
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SKX v Manchester City Council
...(emphasis added) 49 At paragraph 26, Lady Hale approved the reasoning of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Ng Huat Seng v Mohammed [2017] SGCA 58, in which the Singapore Court said that the recent Supreme Court judgments had fine-tuned the existing framework underlying the doctrine of vicari......
-
TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd
...a company and a contractor that had been engaged to carry out demolition works on the company's premises – see Ng Huat Seng v Mohammad [2017] SGCA 58 (cited in Barclays Bank at [26]). (5) The relationship between the football club and the football scout/coach in DSN. 261 There is a wealth o......
-
Andrew Carr (A Protected Party, by His Litigation Friend Michelle Parsons) v Brands Transport Ltd
...a company and a contractor that had been engaged to carry out demolition works on the company's premises — see Ng Huat Seng v Mohammad [2017] SGCA 58 (cited in Barclays Bank at [26]). (5) The relationship between the football club and the football scout/coach in DSN [viz, Blackpool Football......
-
Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants
...own insurance (para 52) and could work for other clients (para 53). Their relationship was not “akin to employment” (para 56). 26 In Ng Huat Seng v Mohammad [2017] SGCA 58, the owners of a property had engaged the tortfeasor as an independent contractor to carry out demolition works at the......
-
UKSC: Vicarious liability, akin to employment and independent contractors
...Appeal’s decision in Kafagi v JBW Group Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1157 and the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Ng Huat Seng v Mohammad [2017] SGCA 58 [25-26]. In light of this, the question is, as it has always been, whether the person who committed the tort is carrying on business on his......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...Medical Pte Ltd [2017] 1 SLR 918; Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] 2 SLR 492; Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni [2017] 2 SLR 1074; Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [2018] 2 SLR 866. 31 See para 31 below. 32 For consistency, the ......
-
Tort Law
...Ong Teck Soon v Ong Teck Seng [2017] 4 SLR 819. 160 See the facts of the case in paras 26.58–26.69 above. 161 Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed. 162 [2017] 2 SLR 1074. 163 [2013] 2 AC 1. 164 [2016] AC 660. 165 Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni [2017] 2 SLR 1074 at [62]. 166 Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohamm......
-
Securities and Financial Services Regulation
...liability generally, see WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni [2017] 2 SLR 1074; Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 540. See further Justin Tan, “Vicarious Liability As......
-
Tort Law
...Ng Li Ning v Ting Jun Heng [2021] 2 SLR 1267 at [17]. 40 Ng Li Ning v Ting Jun Heng [2021] 2 SLR 1267 at [26]. 41 [2021] 4 SLR 1371. 42 [2017] 2 SLR 1074. 43 [2006] QB 510. 44 [2014] SGHC 177. 45 See para 28.28 above. 46 Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2006] QB ......