Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another v Socomec SA

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeJudith Prakash J
Judgment Date11 April 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] SGHC 76
Docket NumberSuit No 422 of 2009
Date11 April 2012
Published date23 May 2012
Year2012
Plaintiff CounselPrem Kumar Gurbani and Adrian Aw Hon Wei (Gurbani & Co)
Citation[2012] SGHC 76
Defendant CounselDoris Chia Ming Lai and Richard Yeoh Kar Hoe (David Lim & Partners) the defendant.
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterTort,Negligence
Judith Prakash J: Introduction

This is a claim in tort for damage resulting from two fires that took place on the night of 27/28 June 2007. The second plaintiff, Singapore Telecommunications Limited (“SingTel”), is the lessee of the premises in which the fires took place. The first plaintiff, Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd (“SKS”), was the main contractor employed by SingTel to carry out certain works on the premises. The defendant, Socomec SA, is the manufacturer of certain electronic items which were purchased in connection with the works. It is the plaintiffs’ case that the fires were caused by the malfunctioning of the defendant’s goods but this is denied by the defendant.

Background Relationships between the parties and the Works

SingTel is the lessee of a building known as Kim Chuan Telecommunications Complex (the “Complex”). It leased the Complex for the purpose of containing a data storage facility which could be rented out to customers. SingTel subsequently (October 2006) employed SKS as its main contractor to undertake the construction, completion and maintenance of upgrading and fit out works (the “Works”) at the Complex so as to make it suitable for the intended purpose.

The Works consisted of additions and alteration works to the first, second, seventh, eighth and tenth storeys of the Complex. Among the things which SKS had to do were to supply, install, test and commission nine generator sets, four water cooled chillers, ten oil-immersed type transformers, high tension switchgears and eight Uninterruptible Power Supply (“UPS”) systems consisting of eight UPS units and ancillary electrical components.

The purpose of installing the UPS systems in the Complex was to prevent, in the event of a power failure from the main supply, loss of electrical power to the computer equipment that store the database. If a power failure were to occur, the UPS systems would immediately take over the supply of electricity to the computer equipment connected to the main power supply to ensure no loss of data in the computer equipment. The UPS systems basically consist of the UPS units, batteries, battery racks, battery protection boxes, cables and connectors linking the UPS units to the main power supply, the batteries, and computers storing the database.

The defendant is a well known and established manufacturer of UPS units in France. It has a subsidiary in Singapore, Socomec UPS Asia (S) Pte Ltd (“Socomec Asia”). In October 2006, SingTel appointed Socomec Asia as one of the subcontractors for the Works. Shortly thereafter, Socomec Asia ordered eight UPS units from the defendant for the purpose of installation in the Works as part of the UPS system. On 30 January 2007, the subcontract between SingTel and Socomec Asia was novated so that SKS replaced SingTel as the purchaser.

The consequence of all these arrangements was that there were contractual relationships between SingTel and SKS, between SKS and Socomec Asia and between Socomec Asia and the defendant. There were no contractual relations between SingTel and the defendant or between SKS and the defendant.

The main contract between SingTel and SKS contained an indemnification clause (cl 18(2)) which required SKS to indemnify SingTel “against any damage, expense, liability, loss, claim or proceedings due to injury or damage of any kind to any property real or personal (including property of [SingTel]) other than the Works”. The subcontract between SKS and Socomec Asia also contained an indemnification clause (cl 9.2) which required Socomec Asia to indemnify SKS “against any liability of [SKS] to indemnify [SingTel] under clause 18(2) of the Main Contract insofar as it may arise out of or in the course of or by reason of the carrying our of the Sub-Contract Works”.

It should be noted that as required under the main contract, SKS procured a Contractor’s All Risks Policy to cover the Works. This took effect on 1 November 2006 for the period from then to 16 October 2007. Among the co-insured under the policy were SKS, SingTel and Socomec Asia.

Tests and installation of the UPS units

The eight UPS units supplied by the defendant were referred to in the proceedings as UPS 7-1 to UPS 7-8. Between 8 January 2007 and 18 January 2007, Automatic Tests were conducted on all eight UPS units at the defendant’s factory in France. It is not in dispute that UPS 7-8, the allegedly defective unit and cause of the two fires, passed the Automatic Test.

Between 14 and 18 January 2007, the specific Factory Acceptance Test (“FAT”) was conducted for UPS 7-7 in the defendant’s factory in France. It is not disputed that the specific FAT was not conducted for the other seven units, including UPS 7-8, although some readings from the Automatic Tests were incorporated into the FAT report for the UPS 7-8 and accepted by SingTel’s agent, Mr Goh Soon Huat (“Mr Goh”).

The eight UPS units were installed by Socomec Asia in Level 7 of the Complex with UPS 7-2, 7-4, 7-6 and 7-8 in the UPS room of the north room and UPS 7-1, 7-3, 7-5 and 7-7 in the UPS room of the south room. The north and south rooms are at opposite sides of Level 7 with the data banks in the centre and adjacent to each room.

The north room is divided into two “rooms” which open into each other – the UPS room which housed the four UPS units and the UPS bypass panel, and the battery room which housed the batteries, battery racks and battery protection boxes. The batteries, battery racks and battery protection boxes were supplied by third parties not connected to this action.

Each UPS unit was linked by four cables on overhead metal cable ladders to its own battery protection box in the battery room. From this box, eight cables were linked to its own battery in the battery room via cable ladders, ie, there were 48 cables in total above the four boxes. During the course of installation, several tests were conducted on the UPS units, the cables and the batteries.

The fires

On 27 June 2007, representatives of HS Inspection Pte Ltd, accompanied by representatives of Socomec Asia and Hitachi Plant Technologies Ltd, conducted infrared thermal scanning tests on the 8 UPS systems. After completion of the tests, at or around 8.20pm, the same persons witnessed sparks from the UPS room in the north room, and heard cracking and loud sounds from the top of UPS 7-8.

Subsequently, several of those persons present heard popping sounds and other heard popping sounds and saw sparks followed by fire erupting in the battery bank in the north room. They ran out of the room and the fire brigade was summoned.

Two fires broke out at that time: a fire in UPS 7-8 which localised and died out on its own and a fire in the battery room (together the “27 June fires”). The fire brigade (“SCDF”) extinguished the fire in the battery room. They then proceeded to damp down the area of the fire. The SCDF used water to put out the fire and broke windows in order to ventilate the battery room.

In the early hours on 28 June 2007, there was a second fire (the “28 June fire”) in the battery room and the SCDF firemen who were on the scene had to douse the fire again.

The claim and the defence

After the fires, SKS and SingTel made claims against the insurer under the all risks policy, Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Limited (“Tokio Marine”). Tokio Marine eventually paid out the sum of $8,157,686.26 to SKS and the sum of $450,879.04 to SingTel and thereby became subrogated to their respective rights. The amounts paid did not include the cost of replacing UPS 7-8 and the other three damaged UPS units in the north room as the same were replaced by the defendant without cost to SingTel.

This action was started on 14 May 2009 by Tokio Marine in the names of SingTel and SKS claiming damages for the loss suffered by reason of the fires. In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs pleaded that the fires caused extensive damage to level 7 of the Complex including the four UPS units, the battery bank and other electronic and electrical components located there. The particulars of the damage were given as follows: Electrical components inside the UPS 7-8 were damaged. Electrical lighting, cables and fittings in the battery bank section were damaged. Overhead cable trays and ceilings in the battery bank section were severely damaged and partially collapsed. About 600 lead acid batteries were completely destroyed. DC panels located in the battery bank section were severely damaged. Other contents in the UPS section were damaged by sustained heat and smoke. Other areas sustained heat and smoke damage. Smoke damage to property in the 2nd to the 6th storeys and 9th storey of the Complex.

The plaintiffs’ position is that their losses were caused by the fires which in turn were caused by the defective UPS 7-8. As the manufacturer of the UPS units, the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs not to damage their property by ensuring that the UPS units supplied to SingTel were fit for the purpose intended.

The defendant denies liability for the loss and damage claimed by the plaintiffs. It denies that it owes a duty of care to the plaintiffs and that it has breached its duty of care; it further denies that the damage was caused by the defendant’s breach. It alleges that in any event, the plaintiffs contributed to and/or aggravated the first and/or second fires and that there was a break in the chain of causation.

The trial of the action was bifurcated and I therefore heard evidence relating to liability only.

The issues

The issues have been formulated slightly differently by each party but they can be rephrased as follows: Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to SingTel and to SKS; If so, whether the defendant had breached its duty of care by acting below the standard of care required of an ordinary skilled manufacturer; Whether the fires were caused by a failure in UPS 7-8; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • BNM v National University of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 Enero 2014
    ...1 KB 762 (refd) Plan Assure PAC v Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd [2007] 4 SLR (R) 513; [2007] 4 SLR 513 (refd) Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd v Socomec SA [2012] 2 SLR 1057 (refd) See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 284 (folld) Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Visio......
  • BNM (administratrix of the estate of B, deceased) on her own behalf and on behalf of ors v National University of Singapore and anor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 Enero 2014
    ...standard of care which it had to meet. Mr Behfor the Plaintiff relies on the case of Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another v Socomec SA [2012] 2 SLR 1057 (“Sato Kogyo”) for the proposition that NUS, although operating a private swimming pool, having set itself a higher standard of lifeguarding......
  • NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 Octubre 2017
    ...title to the damaged property (see The “Patraikos 2” [2002] 1 SLR(R) 966 at [137] and Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another v Socomec SA [2012] 2 SLR 1057 at [42]). I accept the defendants’ submission that the plaintiff’s losses constitute pure economic loss. The loss of gross profits and the ......
2 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 Diciembre 2012
    ...of intention to injure the plaintiffs was not satisfied. Negligence General 24.54 The facts in Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd v Socomec SA[2012] 2 SLR 1057 (‘Sato Kogyo’) were that a fire broke out on premises leased by the second plaintiff (‘Singtel’), causing loss both to Singtel and the first pl......
  • Building and Construction Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 Diciembre 2012
    ...to property or physical injury or death, references to English cases are still not uncommon. 7.52 In Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd v Socomec SA[2012] 2 SLR 1057, the defendant was sued for negligence in its capacity as a manufacturer and reference was made to M'alister (Or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Ste......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT