PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ,Chao Hick Tin JA,Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA,Judith Prakash JA,Tay Yong Kwang JA |
Judgment Date | 11 April 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 26 |
Year | 2017 |
Date | 11 April 2017 |
Published date | 18 April 2017 |
Hearing Date | 28 November 2016 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Tan Chee Meng SC, Josephine Choo and Jeffrey Koh (WongPartnership LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Assoc Prof Lee Pey Woan (School of Law, Singapore Management University) as amicus curiae.,Tan Chuan Thye SC, Avinash Pradhan, Daniel Gaw, Alyssa Leong and Arthi Anbalagan (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 26 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 234 of 2015 and 96 of 2016 |
Is there any role for the concept of
Whether or not the law in Singapore should recognise the availability of punitive damages purely for breach of contract (that is to say, absent concurrent liability in tort) is the major issue in the present appeal (“Issue 2”); and to assist us in resolving it, we appointed Assoc Prof Lee Pey Woan (“Prof Lee”) as
The High Court judge (“the Judge”) held, in
In a subsequent hearing, the Judge declined, in
With this very brief overview, let us turn, first, to recount the facts as well as decision of the Judge in the court below.
FactsPH is incorporated in Singapore. It designs, manufactures, and supplies heavy machinery for offshore use in the marine and gas industry. Airtrust is incorporated in the Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong.
In 2007, an Australian company, Trident Offshore Services (“Trident”), approached PH with the intention of purchasing a 300-ton RDU. The RDU was to be mounted on board a vessel for the laying of undersea umbilical cables in the Bass Straits of Australia. Airtrust then entered into talks with Trident, and it was decided that it would buy the RDU from PH which was then to be leased to Trident. It is not disputed that all negotiations for the purchase of the RDU were conducted between one of Trident’s associate companies, on Airtrust’s behalf, and PH.
Airtrust and PH entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) on 7 September 2007. Under the SPA, PH was to design and supply the RDU. The purchase price was $895,000. Included in the purchase price was American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) “Full Certification” at an itemised cost of $20,000. The purpose of the ABS certification was to ensure that an independent entity would review the design, survey the manufacturing processes and witness the testing of the RDU to ensure conformity with the requisite design, construction, and structural codes and standards. For present purposes, “full certification” refers to a review of the RDU’s structural design, mechanical design and electrical components.
It transpired that ABS was not able to provide certification for machines like the RDU. PH thus suggested to Trident, in an email on 12 October 2007, that ABSG Consulting, Inc (“ABSG”), a subsidiary of ABS, provide the certification instead. The email correspondence on this issue was forwarded to Airtrust, who agreed.
As part of the process for obtaining certification, PH prepared a confidential bundle of documents containing design drawings and calculations and submitted it to ABSG (“Confidential Bundle”). The bundle was prepared by one of PH’s assistant managers, Mr Steven Gan (“Mr Gan”). It was submitted in December 2007. Airtrust was at no time aware of what was in the Confidential Bundle – it was not disputed that PH was solely responsible for designing the RDU and that it kept the design of the RDU confidential.
PH engaged a freelance structural engineer, Dr Liu Li (“Dr Liu”), to analyse its structural design using STAAD.Pro, a computer programme by which structures are modelled so that they could be tested against different loadings, or load cases. In applying load cases to a model, the software also processes what is termed a “unity check”. To pass the unity check, a value of less than “1.0” is required.
In Dr Liu’s preliminary report sent to PH on 26 October 2007, the STAAD.Pro analysis showed that the unity checks were not met. PH then decided to strengthen the structure and indicated so in the AutoCAD drawing that Mr Lei Chengyi, PH’s design engineer at the material time, sent to Dr Liu on 29 October 2007. On 7 November 2007, Dr Liu sent Mr Lei a final report indicating that the structural design passed the unity check.
On 4 February 2008, Ms Renuka Devi (“Ms Devi”), the lead structural engineer from ABSG, asked Mr Gan for a number of documents, including the STAAD.Pro input file. Ms Devi asked for the STAAD.Pro file again the next day, 5 February 2008, but this time from Ms Tan Sin Liu (“Ms Tan”), PH’s mechanical engineer who was in charge of the design of the RDU. On 15 February 2008, Dr Liu emailed the STAAD.Pro file to Mr Lei, who forwarded it on 18 February 2008 to Ms Tan; she sent it to Ms Devi the same day.
On 18 February 2008, Ms Devi emailed PH (her email was specifically addressed to Ms Tan) with, among others, the following query: “No wind load has been considered – Please clarify”. Ms Tan forwarded the email to Dr Liu for his advice on Ms Devi’s query. Dr Liu replied on the same day, “As per the requirement by [PH], wind load was not considered in the report. [PH] suggested that spooler located in the cabine, hence there is no wind load applied.” PH then forwarded that email to ABSG.
On 19 February 2008, ABSG issued three certificates, two of which are relevant to the present appeals: (a) a Structural Design Review certificate, and (b) a Mechanical and Electrical Design Review certificate. Both certificates stated that the “300-ton Wire Spooler Tower” was considered satisfactory provided that the calculations and drawings were adhered to and the workmanship was to the satisfaction of an ABS consulting surveyor.
On 10 April 2008, Trident took delivery of the RDU on behalf of Airtrust. The RDU was then mounted on the vessel
The trial before the Judge was bifurcated and dealt only with the issue of liability. The Judge found that PH had breached the SPA by not delivering an RDU that was of merchantable quality and fit for its purpose, and ordered damages to be assessed. There is no appeal against this finding.
FraudThe Judge also considered whether PH had been “reckless, dishonest or fraudulent” in the manner it had secured the ABSG certification for the RDU.
In this regard, Airtrust had pleaded in its statement of claim that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Public Bank Berhad
...Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh [2007] 3 MLJ xcvii. [120] In PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appeal [2017] SGCA 26; [2017] 2 SLR 129 the Singapore Court of Appeal (per Justice Andrew Phang) unequivocally enunciated that punitive damages are not claimabl......
- Malaysia Airline System Bhd and Another v Ismail Nasaruddin Abdul Wahab
-
Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil
...punitive damages in contract adopted by this court in PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appeal [2017] 2 SLR 129 at [136]). With this, we now turn to the caveats to the recognition, in principle, of an available claim in unjust enrichment on the basis......
-
Denka Advantech Pte Ltd v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd
...Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525 (not folld) PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 129 (refd) Philips Hong Kong Ltd v AG of Hong Kong [1993] 1 LRC 775 (refd) RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413; ......
-
Contracting to Avoid Tort-Based Punitive Damages Awards
...in Acquisition Agreements. 63 Bus. Law. 777, 779 (2008). See e.g., PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v. Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd., [2017] SGCA 26 (Singapore) (discussing the approach of the various commonwealth jurisdictions to punitive damages for breach of Restatement (Second) of Contra......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...[2016] 3 SLR 1273; Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850. 29 PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 129; Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui [2018] 1 SLR 363; Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua [2018] 2 SLR 655; Turf Club Auto E......
-
CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
...of contract” [emphasis added]: see John D McCamus, “The Future of the Canadian Common Law of Contract” (2014) 31 JCL 131 at 141. 249 [2017] 2 SLR 129. 250 PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hongkong) Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 129 at [68], [71], [72] and [74]. 251 PH Hydraulics & Enginee......
-
Security for performance
...Properties Pte Ltd v Defu Furniture Pte Ltd [2014] SGCa 62 at [61]–[62]; PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd [2017] SGCa 26 at [32]. Common law fraud could exist where, to the knowledge of the person making the demand for payment, there is illegality afecting the ......
-
Contract Law
...Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85 at [101]. 180 [2019] 3 SLR 399. 181 Powerdrive Pte Ltd v Loh Kin Yong Philip [2019] 3 SLR 399 at [45]. 182 [2017] 2 SLR 129. 183 Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua [2018] 2 SLR 655. 184 Until it is revisited by the UK Supreme Court, the English position h......