The Subsidiary Management Corporation No. 01 - Strata Title Plan No. 4355 v Janaed and another and another appeal
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court Appellate Division (Singapore) |
Judge | Woo Bih Li JAD |
Judgment Date | 21 June 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGHC(A) 26 |
Citation | [2022] SGHC(A) 26 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 98 of 2021 and 99 of 2021 |
Published date | 24 June 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Eu Hai Meng Michael and Alicia Chia Si Min (CIVIC Legal LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Namasivayam Srinivasan and VM Vidthiya (Hoh Law Corporation),Peter Ong Lip Cheng (Peter Ong Law Corporation),The first respondent in AD/CA 99/2021 in person. |
Subject Matter | Tort,Negligence,Breach of duty,Contributory negligence,Duty of care |
Hearing Date | 16 March 2022 |
These appeals arise from the oral judgment (the “Judgment”) given by the High Court Judge (the “Judge”) in HC/S 1127/2019 (“Suit 1127”). The plaintiff in Suit 1127, Mr Janaed (“Janaed”), was injured after falling 3.7 metres from the top of a chiller (“Chiller 1”) in the mechanical and electrical room (“M&E Room”) at Westgate Tower, Singapore. Westgate Tower is a commercial office building.
In Suit 1127, Janaed sued the following:
MCST had engaged Zoe to replace two flow switches (the “Works”) at another chiller (“Chiller 2”) in the M&E Room. Zoe subcontracted the Works to STA. Newtec, who was Janaed’s employer, supplied labour (including Janaed) to STA for the Works.
Janaed’s case was that his accident was caused by negligence on the part of Newtec and/or STA and/or Zoe and/or MCST.
Background factsZoe was represented by its Project Manager, Mr Eugene Julian (“Eugene”), in its communications with MCST and STA. The Judge found that on 7 November 2018, MCST confirmed its engagement of Zoe for the Works (Judgment at [27]). The Judge further found that Eugene called Ding on 7 November 2018 and informed Ding to liaise with MCST’s Property Executive, Mr Beringuel, Monti Carlo Catarinen (“Monti”) for the Works to be carried out (Judgment at [30]). Ding did so and arranged with Monti for a site survey to be carried out in the morning on 8 November 2018.
On the morning of 8 November 2018, the following persons visited the M&E Room for the site survey:
Ding spoke to Monti later that afternoon. Monti told Ding that he could replace the flow switches at Chiller 2 with the same model as the existing switches or alternatively, he could use the model of the switches installed at Chiller 1. Ding then called Janaed and asked him to check the model of the flow switches at Chiller 1.
Janaed used a fireman’s ladder to climb to the top of Chiller 1. He stood on the top of Chiller 1 and used his mobile phone to take photos of one of the switches. He held his mobile phone in one hand and used his other hand to zoom in for a close-up of the flow switch. There were no guard-rails at the top of the chiller and Janaed did not use any safety harness or belt.
Janaed fell from the top of Chiller 1 and landed on the floor. As a result of the fall, Janaed suffered injuries and is now paralysed. Although Janaed could not recall how or why he fell, footage from closed circuit television (“CCTV”) in the M&E Room suggested that he fell in the circumstances mentioned in [8] above and this was not disputed before us.
Decision below and these appeals The Judge:
AD/CA 98 of 2021 (“AD/CA 98”) is MCST’s appeal against Janaed and Zoe. MCST’s case is that (a) it was not liable to Janaed; alternatively, that (b) Zoe caused and/or contributed to the accident, and (c) Janaed was 50% contributorily negligent.
AD/CA 99 of 2021 (“AD/CA 99”) is Janaed’s appeal against STA and MCST. Janaed’s case is that (a) he was not contributorily negligent, and alternatively, that (b) his contributory negligence did not exceed 10%.
Issues before us These appeals raise the following issues:
As stated earlier, the Judge declined to enter interlocutory judgment against Newtec on the ground that it was open to Janaed to enter interlocutory judgment in default of appearance. Janaed has since done so pursuant to O 13 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) (the “Rules”). Under the default judgment, Newtec’s liability is not reduced by any contributory negligence on the part of Janaed. It is not clear why the Judge did not in any event grant Janaed judgment against Newtec after the trial. Since Janaed’s action was proceeding against the other defendants in any event, the Judge could and should have entered interlocutory judgment against Newtec after trial, if he found Newtec to be liable, so as to avoid any argument as to whether the Judge’s finding that Janaed was 30% contributorily negligent would also apply to Newtec. However, this is not an issue before us and we say no more about it.
MCST’s liability Duty of care In
In the present case, the Judge found that it was factually foreseeable that Janaed may suffer injury if he were to carry out any work, to be done on the top of the chillers at such a height without any guard-rails or barriers, or safety equipment and with no one (including any representative from MCST) in attendance (Judgment at [64]). The Judge also found that Janaed’s relationship with MCST was sufficient to find legal proximity and that there were no policy considerations which would negate the
In its Appellant’s Case, MCST refers to
In
In coming to her conclusion, the DJ referred to the following passage in the High Court’s decision in
An occupier owes a duty of care to prevent injury to an invitee from unusual dangers which the occupier knows or ought to have known about (
Mohd bin Sapri v Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd and another appeal [1996] 2 SLR(R) 223 at [47] (“Sapri ”). Critically, this duty only pertains to the physical condition of the premises and not the operations at the site (Sapri at [47]).
The DJ described the finding in the above passage as “in effect, … a finding on ‘factual foreseeability’” (at [79]). The DJ then applied the distinction between the physical condition of the premises and the operations on the premises to the case before her and found that the plaintiff’s accident was the result of an operation and not a condition of the premises (at [80]).
The plaintiff in
In our judgment, MCST’s reliance on
MCST’s submission is reminiscent of the traditional claim based on occupiers’ liability
To continue reading
Request your trial-
How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals
...at [56]; The Subsidiary Management Corporation No. 01 – Strata Title Plan No. 4355 v Janaed and another and another appeal [2022] SGHC(A) 26 at [32]). For instance, the statutory duty might possibly be relevant in informing the court of the standard of care expected of the defendant (see Gr......