Sim Chee Yong v Centre for Fathering Ltd and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Clement Seah Chi-Ling |
Judgment Date | 05 June 2024 |
Neutral Citation | [2024] SGDC 135 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Court Suit No 2004 of 2021, District Court Appeal No 3 of 2024 |
Hearing Date | 20 December 2023,07 August 2023,08 August 2023,29 May 2023,30 May 2023,31 May 2023,07 February 2024 |
Citation | [2024] SGDC 135 |
Year | 2024 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ramasamy s/o Karuppan Chettiar and Mark Ho En Tian (Central Chambers Law Corporation) |
Defendant Counsel | Chia Huai Yuan and Clarence Cheang Wei Ming (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP),Jevan Li Xianliang (BC Lim & Lau LLC) |
Published date | 14 June 2024 |
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 “
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 (“
The 1st Defendant, Centre for Fathering Ltd (“
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
CFF’s Chief Executive Officer is one Mr Bryan Tan Hon Jonn (“
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 “
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 (“
The 2nd Defendant, Better Trails Education LLP (now known as Trails Community LLP) (“
Mr Loh Chee Hwa (“
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:
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” ProgrammeIn 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” ProgrammeAccording 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” (“
According to Mr Tan, discussions leading up to BT’s engagement covered,
After the engagement was finalised, CFF’s representatives met up with BT’s representatives to further discuss,
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