Sim Chee Yong v Centre for Fathering Ltd and another

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeClement Seah Chi-Ling
Judgment Date05 June 2024
Neutral Citation[2024] SGDC 135
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDistrict Court Suit No 2004 of 2021, District Court Appeal No 3 of 2024
Hearing Date20 December 2023,07 August 2023,08 August 2023,29 May 2023,30 May 2023,31 May 2023,07 February 2024
Citation[2024] SGDC 135
Year2024
Plaintiff CounselRamasamy s/o Karuppan Chettiar and Mark Ho En Tian (Central Chambers Law Corporation)
Defendant CounselChia Huai Yuan and Clarence Cheang Wei Ming (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP),Jevan Li Xianliang (BC Lim & Lau LLC)
Published date14 June 2024
District Judge Clement Seah Chi-Ling: Introduction

The Plaintiff commenced the present action against the Defendants claiming damages for personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of a flash-fire incident (the “Accident”) which occurred during an outdoor event called “Camp-out with Dad” slated to be held from 26 to 27 October 2019 at the Jelutong campsite in Pulau Ubin (the “Event’). The Event was jointly run by the Defendants.

The Accident occurred when the 2nd Defendant’s employee, one Loh Chee Hwa, poured methylated spirit onto a campfire in an attempt to start the campfire. This ignited the methylated spirit in the bottle, which shot out from the bottle and landed on the Plaintiff and his infant son, causing burn injuries.

The Plaintiff brought actions both in contract and in tort against the Defendants. The 2nd Defendant conceded liability for the Accident1. The trial therefore focused primarily on the 1st Defendant’s liability to the Plaintiff.

The trial was bifurcated, with the issue of liability to be determined first.

The parties The Plaintiff

The Plaintiff, Sim Chee Yong (“Plaintiff” or “PW1”), was a participant of the Event with his son, Emil.

The 1st Defendant - Centre for Fathering Ltd

The 1st Defendant, Centre for Fathering Ltd (“CFF” or “the 1st Defendant”), is a non-profit organization that was incorporated in Singapore in 2001 as a public company limited by guarantee2. Its principal activities are “social services without accommodation for children, youth and families”3. According to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority’s (“ACRA”) website, a company limited by guarantee “carries out non-profit making activities of national or public interest, such as promoting arts, charity etc.”4

CFF has also been a registered charity since 19 September 2001 and is accorded Institution of Public Character (IPC) status5. The Commissioner of Charities’ Charity portal states that to be registered as a charity, the organisation’s “purposes must be exclusively charitable6.

CFF’s Chief Executive Officer is one Mr Bryan Tan Hon Jonn (“Mr Tan” or “1DW1”). Mr Loke Parc Sen (“Mr Loke” or “1DW2”) is CFF’s Head of Programmes and Development.

According to Mr Tan’s testimony, CFF seeks to promote active and involved fathering, and to address the issues caused by fatherlessness in Singapore. CFF aims to turn the hearts of fathers and children towards each other by inspiring fathers to be better role models, and equip men to be the fathers that their children need. Mr Tan deposed that over the last 21 years, CFF has empowered and equipped more than 55,000 fathers through its programmes conducted in schools, prisons, religious organisations and companies. Some examples include “Eat With Your Family day”, “Back To School With Dad” and “Celebrating Fathers7.

Mr Tan further testified that CFF does not operate with a view to profit, and that CFF’s programmes are typically priced on a break-even, cost-recovery basis8. This is because most of CFF’s constituents cannot afford to pay to attend their programmes otherwise. The bulk of CFF’s operating expenses are from government grants, such as from the National Council of Social Services (“NCSS”), Community Chest and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (“MSF”), as well as donations and funds raised from fundraising activities9. CFF does not have investors, and only plans its budget according to how much it can raise in a single year10.

The 2nd Defendant – Better Trails Education LLP

The 2nd Defendant, Better Trails Education LLP (now known as Trails Community LLP) (“BT” or the “2nd Defendant”), is a partnership incorporated in Singapore. BT is in the business of providing outdoor and environment education programmes.

Mr Loh Chee Hwa (“Mr Loh” or “2DW1”) is one of the partners of BT.

BT is a key advocate for outdoor ethics and environmental protection, and has organised coastal clean-ups activities and education and training programmes to promote outdoor ethics in Singapore. The following summary of BT’s credentials as deposed by Mr Tan in his affidavit, which was based on materials included in BT’s pitch booklet11 for an earlier event, were not severely disputed: “(a) BT is an organisational member of the Outdoor Learning & Adventure Education Association [(“OLAE”)], a trade association that promulgates industry-specific standards and accreditation for practitioners and member organisations. BT keeps abreast of good practices in the industry to ensure the quality and proper execution of outdoor education programmes and has also been involved in the crafting of industry standards in the area of outdoor ethics ….. BT is a member of the Global partnership on Marine Litter (“GPML”), a global initiative under the United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”). BT has been a member of the GPML since 2016 and has actively participated in its webinars and educational courses. BT also has 8 trainers who had graduated under the Expert Track of the Massive Open Online Course on Marine Litter by the UNEP in cooperation with the Open University of the Netherlands (as of 2018), and has used the knowledge gathered to develop marine conservation literacy programme(s) ….. BT is a social enterprise member of raiSE Singapore, and seeks to promote outdoor ethics through its educational programmes and encouraging outdoor recreations ….. BT is a partner of Leave No Trace Inc. (USA), an internationally recognised educational programme aimed at promoting outdoor ethics. As of 2019, BT has a team of over 30 Leave No Trace (“LNT”) Trainers and 7 LNT Master Educators qualified in the delivery of LNT programmes …... BT has also collaborated with the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore for coastal clean-up events, has organised a variety of camps for organisations such as Families for Life and People’s Association Passion Wave (previously known as PA Water Venture), and is collaborating with the National Parks Board to host experiences that promote Pulau Ubin’s natural heritage and to aid its recovery…..”12

The 2nd Defendant’s prior collaborations with Maritime Port Authority of Singapore, Families for Life, People’s Association Passion Wave (previously known as PA Water Venture), and National Parks Board were extracted from the 2nd Defendant’s website13.

Background Facts Origins of the “Campout With Dad” Programme

In or around July 2019, CFF launched a new initiative called “Fathering through Outdoors”. This initiative sought to encourage bonding between fathers and their children, while participating in outdoor activities. As CFF did not have the requisite expertise and resources to organise and conduct outdoor activities, CFF sourced for an outdoor events management company which had the necessary qualifications and experience to organise and conduct such events.

BT was one of the outdoors events management companies considered by the 1st Defendant for the “Fathering through Outdoors” initiative. BT had previously, in 2018, made a pitch to run another event for CFF but was unsuccessful. BT, however, volunteered to help CFF with certain aspects of the 2018 event, including giving a pre-camp briefing on how to care for the environment, and setting up an outreach booth to engage the participants of the 2018 event on the “leave no trace principles” advocated by BT.

The present proposal submitted by BT in 2019 for the “Fathering through Outdoors” initiative outlined a series of outdoor programmes BT could offer.14 “CampOut with Dad” was one of the programmes proposed by the BT15. It was stated in the proposal that BT will charge CFF a fixed fee of $180 (per father and child pair) for planning, organising and conducting the programme.

Appointment of BT for the “Campout With Dad” Programme

According to Mr Tan, CFF was aware of the 2nd Defendant’s extensive experience in organising outdoor events16, including BT’s prior organisation of camps for various organisations and entities, coastal clean-up events and education and training programmes concerning outdoor ethics in Singapore17.

After evaluating the various proposals and the credentials of the potential candidates, CFF decided to take the discussions with BT further. In particular, CFF was interested in programme 2(c) in BT’s list of proposals, which was titled “Campout with Dad” (“CWD”). This was a 2-day-1-night residential camp to be held at Pulau Ubin. Under the proposal, BT would provide (i) Camp Facilitators; (ii) Camping equipment; (iii) Personal Accident (PA) insurance cover and (iv) Ferry and transport within Ubin, for the programme18.

According to Mr Tan, discussions leading up to BT’s engagement covered, inter alia, the conduct and organisation of the CWD event, duration and location of the camp, and how much BT was going to charge CFF for its services19. Once these essential terms were agreed on, the parties reached an oral agreement20 for BT’s engagement. According to Mr Tan, it was common for CFF to enter into verbal contracts with its contractors21.

After the engagement was finalised, CFF’s representatives met up with BT’s representatives to further discuss, inter alia, various aspects of the CWD event, including the programme, the targeted participants and safety issues22. At these meetings, CFF asked Mr Loh questions, inter alia, about (a) the safety aspects of the event (such as how BT would manage medical support and medical evacuation issues)23; (b) whether there would be a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher at the campfire site24; (c) what BT’s weather contingency plans were; and (d) what BT would do if the haze situation worsened25.

The 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant’s role in the execution of the “Campout with Dad” events

The 1st Defendant’s account of the division of work in respect of the organisation of the CWD events was not severely disputed and were as follows.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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