Tetra Laval Pte Ltd v Tan Huan How and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: S Rajendran J
• Judgment Date: 27 March 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 85
• Docket Number: Suit No 376 of 1995
• Date: 27 March 1998
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ranvir Kumar Singh (Kumar & Loh)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 85
• Defendant Counsel: Fazal Mohammed bin Abdul Karim and Lee Ching Wah (B Rao & KS Rajah),MP Rai (Robert WH Wang & Woo)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,Tort,Duty of care,Doctrine as a rule of evidence,Water leakage from elbow joint of pipe causing damage to plaintiffs' goods,Installation of T-joints to pipes by first defendant,Whether defendants negligent and in breach of duty of care to plaintiffs,Negligence,Second defendant engaged by first defendant to install fire hosereels to pipe system in warehouse,Whether applicable on facts of case

: The plaintiffs were the tenants of a warehouse space at CWT Warehouse Distripark at Jalan Buroh. On 18 April 1993 a quantity of paper stored by the plaintiffs at the said warehouse was damaged by water which escaped from an elbow joint in some piping at the said warehouse. The plaintiffs obtained compensation for the loss suffered from their insurers, namely, American Home Assurance Co, who then, under their right of subrogation brought the present claim against the two defendants.

The owners of the warehouse had, in early April 1993, entered into a contract with BS Engineering Co Pte Ltd (the second defendants), a company that provided fire protection equipment and services to, inter alia, supply 11 additional fire hosereels and install them to the existing pipe system at the said warehouse. The second defendants sub-contracted the installation of the fire hosereels to Tan Huan How (the first defendant).

The first defendant commenced work at the warehouse on 15 April 1993. The elbow joint from which the leak occurred was an elbow joint a short distance along the pipe on which the first defendant, in pursuance of his sub-contract, had installed a T-joint for the purpose of connection to an additional fire hosereel. The plaintiffs claimed that in doing work on the piping system the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs and were in breach of that duty in that they (a) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the water pipes on which work was carried out would not burst, (b) failed to adequately and/or properly fasten the joints of the water pipes, and (c) caused and/or permitted water to escape from the water pipes. The plaintiffs also relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur .

The first defendant denied any negligence on his part and alleged that in any event the leak was from an area on which he had not carried out any work. He alleged that the leak was due to some previous contractor using an inadequate form of joining to secure the elbow joint. The second defendants also denied any negligence. In addition, the second defendants denied that they were under a duty of care to the plaintiffs but if they were they had complied with that duty by engaging the first defendant as competent independent contractor skilled in the area of such works.

The plaintiffs called three witnesses in support of their claim. The first witness was a warehouse supervisor employed by the plaintiffs. His evidence related to the fact that the water that leaked had caused damage to the plaintiffs` goods stored at the premises and that the plaintiffs had recovered a sum of $114,509.21 for the loss caused from their insurers leaving an excess of $24,300 under the policy which the plaintiffs had to bear themselves. He had no personal knowledge of how or why the leakage occurred.

The second witness was an insurance adjuster who visited the scene on 25 April 1993, seven days after the incident. The leak had by then been repaired (by the first defendant as it happened). In his report dated 10 May 1993 he ascribed the cause of the leak to a water pipe that had burst at the elbow joint near a fire hosereel at Bay 6 of Module 2 of the warehouse. In cross-examination, the witness readily admitted that he had no personal knowledge of where the leak occurred or why it occurred. He admitted that all that was stated in his report was a repeat of what he had gathered from the plaintiffs` employees when he visited the site for his inspection.

The third witness called by the plaintiffs gave evidence relating to the terms of the policy of insurance taken out by the plaintiffs. He had nothing material to say about the water leakage.

The only direct evidence before the court of where the leak occurred and why it occurred was the evidence of the first defendant. The first defendant testified that, as a sub-contractor of the second defendants, he had installed additional fire hosereels at the CWT warehouse. On 18 April 1993 - a few days after he had made the installation - he was told by the second defendants that a pipe at the warehouse had burst. He immediately went to the site and saw that a (vertical) fire riser pipe at Bay 6 had given way at the elbow joint.

The first defendant testified that the point where the elbow joint had given way was unconnected with the work he had earlier done to the piping. The work he had done in that vicinity involved only the horizontal pipe at that elbow joint. He testified that his worker, under his supervision, had installed a T-joint to that horizontal pipe to connect it to an additional fire hosereel. The first defendant testified...