Techking Enterprise Ltd and Another v JFE Consolidators Pte Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 13 April 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 70
• Date: 13 April 2005
• Subject Matter: Bailees,Sub-bailee alleging arrangement with bailee allowing it to leave goods in front of bailee's warehouse whenever warehouse closed,Duties,Goods subsequently stolen,Bailment,Sub-bailee leaving bailor's goods in front of bailee's locked and closed warehouse,Whether sub-bailee breaching duty to care for bailor's goods
• Docket Number: Suit No 1066 of 2003
• Published date: 14 April 2005
• Defendant Counsel: N Vijay Kumar (Vijay and Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: S Mohan and Bernard Yee (Gurbani and Co)

13 April 2005 Judgment reserved.

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 The first plaintiff, Techking Enterprises Limited (“Techking”), and the second plaintiff, PT Aneka Infokom Tekindo (“PT Aneka”), sued the first defendant, JFE Consolidators Pte Ltd (“JFE”), and the second defendant, Enterprise Bros Services Pte Ltd (“EBS”), for the loss of a cargo of Toshiba personal computers. Techking and JFE settled their dispute before the trial commenced, and on the first day of the trial, PT Aneka sought and was granted leave to withdraw from the action. As such, the trial only concerned Techking’s claim against EBS.

Background

2 Techking appointed JFE as a freight forwarder for its cargo of 161 sets of Toshiba personal computers and accessories (“the cargo”), which was flown from Japan to Singapore on 31 January 2003. The invoice value of the cargo, which was to be transhipped to another country, was US$247,606.00. Without the knowledge of Techking, JFE instructed its subcontractor, EBS, to clear and deliver the cargo to its warehouse.

3 After the cargo arrived at Singapore Changi Airport on 31 January 2003, EBS collected it before dawn on 1 February 2003. The cargo was then trucked to JFE’s warehouse, which was closed at the material time. Notwithstanding this, EBS’s personnel unloaded the cargo and left it in front of the locked warehouse. EBS claimed that it was the agreed practice that whenever the JFE warehouse was closed in the night, goods could be left immediately outside the said warehouse, an area which is lit and under closed-circuit television (“CCTV”) surveillance, and is within the free trade zone that is only accessible to authorised personnel. JFE’s staff would check the goods the next morning and transfer them into the warehouse.

4 Although other cargo had in the past been left by EBS’s staff outside the JFE warehouse when it was not open for business during delivery time, no major problems had been encountered by EBS or JFE. The present problem arose because JFE’s warehouse was closed for several days from sometime on 31 January 2003 until the morning of 5 February 2003 because of the Chinese New Year. As a result, Techking’s cargo was left unattended outside JFE’s warehouse for several days. In the early hours of 5 February 2003, some unknown persons managed to make away with 146 sets of the Toshiba personal computers. The theft was filmed by JFE’s CCTV camera, but the images of the thieves were not clear because the lights which lit the area outside the warehouse had not been switched on. To date, no light has been shed on how the thieves managed to enter and leave the free trade zone, which, as has been mentioned, is only accessible to authorised personnel, and the crime remains an unsolved mystery.

5 After failing to recoup its loss, Techking sued both JFE and EBS but, as has been mentioned, the trial only concerned EBS’s liability for the loss because Techking withdrew its claim against JFE.

EBS’s defence

6 Techking’s case against EBS was that the latter breached its duty as a sub-bailee to care for the cargo in question. In the alternative, Techking alleged that its loss was due to EBS’s negligence in leaving the cargo unattended outside JFE’s warehouse in the early hours of 1 February 2003. EBS asserted that it was not responsible for the loss of Techking’s cargo because it had done all that it was required to do under its contract with JFE. It pointed out that it had agreed with JFE that goods that were delivered to JFE’s warehouse in the early hours of the morning before the warehouse was open for business could be left just outside the warehouse. EBS claimed that as JFE knew that the cargo would be left outside its warehouse in the early hours of 1 February 2003, the latter should have ensured that someone was assigned to open the warehouse and transfer the cargo inside on the morning of 1 February 2003, even though it was the first day of the Chinese New Year. Had this been done, the cargo would not have been stolen four days later. EBS thus submitted that JFE should be the party compensating Techking for the loss in question.

7 JFE denied that it had agreed to allow EBS’ staff to leave any cargo outside its premises. It also asserted that special arrangements had been made with EBS for the cargo to be stored in EBS’s own warehouse over the Chinese New Year holidays. As such, its staff had no reason to believe that the cargo would be left outside its warehouse on 1 February 2003 and EBS should bear responsibility for Techking’s loss.

8...