See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
Judgment Date24 April 2013
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 54 of 2012
Date24 April 2013

Court of Appeal

Sundaresh Menon CJ

,

Chao Hick Tin JA

and

V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeal No 54 of 2012

See Toh Siew Kee
Plaintiff
and
Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others
Defendant

Suresh Damodara (Damodara Hazra LLP) for the appellant

Nagaraja SManiam and Shelly Lim Lei-Yee (MRama Law Corporation) for the first respondent

Srinivasan Selvaraj (Myintsoe & Selvaraj) for the second respondent

Magdalene Chew Sui Gek, Gho Sze Kee and Tay Min Si (Asia Legal LLC) for the third respondent.

ACBillings & Sons Ltd v Riden [1958] AC 240 (refd)

Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee [2011] 2 SLR 146 (refd)

Australian Safeway Stores Proprietary Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 (refd)

British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 (not folld)

Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 (refd)

Davies v The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of The Borough of Tenby [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep 469 (refd)

Dunster v Abbott [1954] 1 WLR 58 (not folld)

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1052 (refd)

Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui [2012] 3 SLR 1038 (folld)

Gorman v Williams [1985] 2 NSWLR 662 (refd)

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (refd)

Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274 (not folld)

Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa Eng [1995] 2 SLR (R) 385; [1995] 2 SLR 716 (refd)

James Davis Rowland Jr v Nancy Christian 443 P 2d 561 (1968) (refd)

John Harvey Nelson v Daryl Dean CFreeland and Belinda Brittain Freeland 507 SE 2d 882 (1998) (refd)

Joseph Kermarec v Compagnie Generale Transatlantique 358 US 625 (1959) (refd)

Latham v Richard Johnson & Nephew, Ltd [1913] 1 KB 398 (not folld)

Le Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 QB 491 (refd)

M'Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (refd)

Mohd bin Sapri v Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd [1996] 2 SLR (R) 223; [1996] 2 SLR 505 (overd)

Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689; [1994] SGCA 148 (folld)

Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567 (refd)

Riden v ACBillings & Sons Ltd [1957] 1 QB 46 (not folld)

Robert Addie and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 (not folld)

Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd [1956] 2 QB 264 (refd)

Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR (R) 100; [2007] 4 SLR 100 (folld)

Stacey v Anglican Churches of Canada (Diocesan Synod of Eastern Newfoundland & Labrador) (1999) 47 CCLT (2d) 153 (refd)

State of South Australia v Wilmot (1993) 62 SASR 562 (refd)

Stone v Clarence Municipality (1993) 79 LGERA 392 (refd)

Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 ALR 1; (1985) 157 CLR 424 (folld)

Thompson v Woolworths (Q'land) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234 (refd)

Toomey v The London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co (1857) 3 CB (NS) 146; 140 ER 694 (refd)

Velazquez, Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1914] 3 KB 458 (refd)

Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810 (refd)

X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 (refd)

Application of English Law Act (Cap 7 A, 1994 Rev Ed) s 5

Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed) s 3

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (c 31) (UK)

Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 (c 30)

Occupiers' Liability Act 1962 (NZ)

Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (c 3) (UK)

Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA)

Wrongs Act 1958 (No 6420 of 1958) (Vic)

Civil Procedure—Appeals—Trial judge not giving reasons in holding appellant contributorily negligent and apportioning liability—Whether judge's apportionment of liability could and should be altered on appeal

Courts and Jurisdiction—Court judgments—Binding force—Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)—Circumstances justifying departure from precedent

Tort—Occupiers' liability—Whether tort of occupiers' liability ought to be subsumed under tort of negligence

Tort—Negligence—Duty of care—Appellant trespassing onto premises—Whether, on application of Spandeck principles, occupiers owing prima facie duty of care to trespassers

Tort—Negligence—Breach of duty—First and second respondents occupiers of premises—Assuming arguendo duty owed, whether first and second respondents had breached requisite standard of care

Tort—Negligence—Breach of duty—Third respondent responsible for mooring operation which injured appellant—Whether third respondent had breached requisite standard of care

Tort—Negligence—Contributory negligence—Appellant trespassing despite knowing of danger—Whether appellant contributorily negligent

The appellant, See Toh Siew Kee (‘See Toh’) was a service engineer by trade. The tugboat was berthed at 9/11 Tuas Basin Close (‘9/11 TBC’). The first respondent, Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Private) Limited (‘HAL’), was the lessor of 9/11 TBC; the second respondent, Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd (‘Lal Offshore’) was a sub-lessor of a portion of 9/11 TBC. The third respondent, Asian Lift Pte Limited (‘Asian Lift’), was engaged by Lal Offshore's customer to take delivery of fabricated living quarters, and used a crane barge, Asian Hercules, for this purpose.

The crew of Asian Hercules intended to affix two metal mooring wires to the shore of 9/11 TBC (‘the Mooring Operation’). During the Mooring Operation, the starboard mooring wire got stuck (in shipping parlance, ‘fouled’) at the ramp of another vessel, Namthong 27.The captain of Asian Hercules, Captain Hamid, continued with the Mooring Operation despite the starboard mooring wire being fouled. As a precautionary measure, Captain Hamid sent seven to eight crew members to shore to clear the area and to secure Asian Hercules's mooring wires to the bollards on shore.

See Toh was engaged to service the radar on board a tugboat, Fortune II.See Toh proceeded to 15 Tuas Basin Close (‘15 TBC’) (adjacent to 9/11 TBC) because he had previously attended to Fortune II there, and had thought that the Fortune II was berthed there. He was told that Fortune II was berthed at 9/11 TBC instead. See Toh left 15 TBC through 15 TBC's main gate and entered a second gate of 15 TBC. After entering the aforesaid second gate, See Toh walked to shore, where a fence separated 15 TBC from 9/11 TBC. There was an open space of about 5m between the end of the fence and the shoreline. See Toh entered 9/11 TBC through the gap in the fence. See Toh was injured by Asian Hercules's fouled mooring wire as he was walking towards Namthong 27's ramp.

See Toh sued HAL and Lal Offshore under the tort of occupiers' liability, and also sued HAL, Lal Offshore and Asian Lift under the tort of negligence. The trial judge dismissed all the claims against all the Respondents. See Toh appealed against the trial judge's decision.

Held, partially allowing the appeal with regard to Asian Lift, but dismissing the appeal with regard to HAL and Lal Offshore:

Per V K Rajah JA:

(1) Under traditional common law rules, there were two sets of rules which ordinarily might apply whenever a person is injured on property. The first set comprises the rules governing occupiers' liability, which applied to an occupier qua occupier simpliciter - in other words, rules pertaining to the static condition of property. The second set comprised rules based on the general principles of the law of negligence, which did not apply to an occupier qua occupier as such - in other words, rules pertaining to dynamic activities done on property: at [20] .

(2) The rules governing occupiers' liability predated the seminal decision of Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562 (‘Donoghue’), which erased the rigid distinctions between hitherto unconnected categories of tort and inductively rationalised the disparate categories as mere instances of the now famous ‘neighbour’ principle: at [21] .

(3) At the time Donoghue was decided, there was no overarching general principle governing occupiers' liability, with the content of the duty owed by an occupier to an entrant determined solely by reference to whether the entrant was an invitee, a licensee or a trespasser. Invitees were owed the highest duty, followed by licensees and trespassers. Commentators had variously described the rules governing occupiers' liability as being confused, complex, cumbersome and expensive to administer. Attempts to reach just results within this trichotomous framework were frequently underpinned by meretricious rationales teetering on the edge of absurdity: at [26] to [31] .

(4) The formalism of the rules governing occupiers' liability appeared to be largely due to path dependence, the existence of inconvenient historical legal precedents, and significantly, the peculiarities of the previously extant jury system. An inductive framework based on Donoghue's ‘neighbour’ principle offered a coherent route to resolving the classificatory problems plaguing occupiers' liability, by simply rendering otiose the invitee-licensee-trespasser trichotomy: at [32] and [34] .

(5) The static-dynamic dichotomy (the division between the static condition of property (‘the static’) and the dynamic activities done on it (‘the dynamic’)) could be (logically) warranted if one could cleanly delineate all potential factual matrices into one category or the other with no overlap. This was not always possible. For some, one portion of the factual matrix would seem to be more susceptible to one classification, while another portion would be susceptible to the other. For other factual matrices, the entire factual matrix seemed to be equally susceptible to both classifications. Trying to distinguish between the static and the dynamic was tantamount to attempting to untie an intractable Gordian knot: at [42] to [46] .

(6) Even if the static-dynamic dichotomy were logically workable, the dichotomy turned on seemingly inconsequential details, was arbitrary and did not comport with justice. The dichotomy obscured the ultimate question of whether a particular occupier ought to be liable in tort to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • MCST Plan No 2668 v Rott George Hugo
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 May 2013
    ...See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 227, HC (refd) See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 284, CA (folld) Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR (R) 100; [2007] 4 SLR 100 (folld) State of South......
  • Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 21 January 2014
    ...Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte Ltd [2004] 4 SLR (R) 353; [2004] 4 SLR 353 (folld) See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 284 (folld) Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No 2) [1988] QB 758 (refd) Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science &......
  • Anwar Patrick Adrian v Ng Chong & Hue LLC
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 29 May 2014
    ...Ltd [2012] QB 44; [2011] BLR 206 (refd) Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297 (refd) See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 284 (refd) Smith v Eric SBush [1990] 1 AC 831 (refd) Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep 605 (refd) Spandeck Engineering (S) P......
  • Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 September 2014
    ...applied” in subsequent cases involving similar questions (see, eg, See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others [2013] 3 SLR 284 at [35]–[36]). Ordinarily, when a common law court pronounces on the law, the pronouncement is unbound by time and operates both retrospectively ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND PATIENT AUTONOMY
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...4 SLR(R) 460. 112Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd[2010] 1 SLR 786. 113 See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd[2013] 3 SLR 284. Coincidentally, the judgments in these three cases were given by V K Rajah JA. 114 See, for example, V K Rajah JA's observation in Chandran......
  • THE PROMISE OF UNIVERSALITY
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...Creditanstalt AG[2011] 4 SLR 559 at [35]. 119Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee[2011] 2 SLR 146 at [64]. 120[2013] 3 SLR 284. For an analysis of this case, see David Tan, ‘The Phoenix Rises: Resurrecting Occupiers' Liability within the Negligence Framework’(2013) 2......
  • THE (QUISTCLOSE) RESULTING TRUST AS A PROPRIETARY RESPONSE TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...Stud S373 at S384. 135Dyer v Dyer(1788) 2 Cox 92 at 93. 136[1991] 2 AC 548. 137 See See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd[2013] 3 SLR 284 at [35] and [123]. 138 See A Burrows, The Law of Restitution (Oxford University Press, 2nd Ed, 2002) at p 527; P Birks, “Overview: Tracing, ......
  • Case Note
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...Gordian Knots and Apron Strings See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 284 The common law rules on occupier's liability were created to determine the scope of the duty owed to entrants arising from dangers on the occupier's property. The subsequent development of th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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