Virco Metal Industries Pte Ltd and Another v Carltech Trading and Industries Pte Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin J
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 138
• Docket Number: Suit No 1110 of 1998
• Date: 25 May 1999
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: VK Rai (VK Rai & Partners)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 138
• Defendant Counsel: Koh Hai Keong and Jacintha Voon (Koh & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Damage to plaintiffs' property due to fire,Whether premises used as unlicensed factory gives cause of action or defence,Factories Act,Statutes,Tort,Breach of duty,Negligence,Duty of care of landlord and fellow tenants,Use of premises as unlicensed factory,Whether defendants in breach of duty of care,Statutory Interpretation,Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Rev Ed)

: This is an action for damages for losses suffered on account of a fire which broke out on 15 October 1997 at about 5.14pm at an industrial building (single storeyed) known as No 68 Sungai Kadut Street 1 (`No 68`). The two plaintiffs (hereinafter called `Virco` and `GJ`) were the tenants of two units in the building. The first defendant was the owner/landlord of the building and the second and third defendants were two other tenants in the same building. I shall hereinafter refer to the three defendants as `Carltech`, `Kee` and `Ah Cheong` respectively.

Background

The land on which No 68 stood was leased by Carltech from the Jurong Town Corporation in 1989. The building was of a rectangular shape, somewhat longish. It was a large building. Carltech sub-divided the building into some 70 different units and subletted them to various entities. Earlier, in 1990, a fire occurred at one end of the building and destroyed that part of it. After that fire, Carltech reconstructed that part and also added a mezzanine floor to that portion.

The two plaintiffs occupied two units on the ground floor. GJ`s unit was directly below the mezzanine floor but Virco`s unit was not. It was adjacent and separated by one other unit. Kee occupied one part of the mezzanine floor and Ah Cheong the other.

Kee was carrying on a business of manufacturing and supplying plastic or fibreglass vehicle bumpers and moulds and of doing coating and spray painting works. Kee would store fibreglass or plastic bumpers, moulds, paints and resins at his premises. Ah Cheong was carrying on a business of supplying disposable polyethylene bags, plastics and receptables, paper food wrappers, plastic cutlery, straws, chopsticks and papers and had utilized the unit for the storage of the same.

The earlier 1990 fire was suspected to have been caused by arson. Fortunately for Carltech, its losses from that fire was covered by insurance. Carltech was as a result advised by the insurers to take certain fire preventive/detection measures, eg to install smoke detectors, to clear wood waste from the premises and to advise sub-tenants against storing hazardous items such as benzene or kerosene of more than four gallons.

In 1993 Carltech changed its insurers. Apparently, the new insurers were less stringent in terms of fire-safety requirements. Carltech claimed that it had in 1991 installed two new fire hose-reels on the mezzanine floor. But no one has testified that he/she saw any hose-reel on that floor.

Carltech was aware of the activities carried out by Kee and Ah Cheong and of the things that were stored in their respective units. So were the two plaintiffs. Carltech was also aware of the business activities of Virco and GJ, and in a general sort of a way, so were Kee and Ah Cheong.

On 15 October 1997, at about 5.14pm, the two employees of Kee had finished their work for the day and were preparing to return home. One of them (Dawood) went to the toilet, located at another part of the building, and the other (Aziz) was changing clothes within the premises. Then suddenly when Aziz turned his head round he noticed a small fire near the entrance to the premises. He shouted that there was a fire. A commotion followed. Dawood heard the commotion and dashed back to his unit. Both of them tried to put out the fire but failed. There was no fire-fighting equipment within the premises. Others sought to use the two fire hose-reels situated nearby on the ground floor, just below the mezzanine floor. However, the hose-reels could not function as each of the controlling tap-head was placed in a metal casing which was locked. It took a while for someone to get the keys from Carltech`s office nearby to unlock each casing in order to turn on the water supply. Alas, when the tap heads were turned on, only a trickle of water came out of the hose-reels, due to inadequate water supply or pressure or both. There was no other fire-fighting equipment which could be used to put out the fire. As a result, within about ten minutes, the fire engulfed Kee`s unit and spread to the neighbouring premises of Ah Cheong. The heat of the fire was so intense that it caused part of the steel beams supporting the roof, above Kee`s unit, to collapse. By the time the fire brigade arrived and put out the fire, the machines, equipment and materials which were in the premises of Virco and GJ were damaged, caused by heat convection.

Cause of the out-break of fire

It is not in dispute that the origin of the fire occurred at the premises occupied by Kee. However, the employee of Kee, Aziz, who was there, did not see how the fire was ignited. His back was against it. The only evidence before me which touches on this critical question on the source of the fire is that of Capt Lee Fook Seng (PW2), who is from the Singapore Civil Defence Force. He testified as an expert. There is no contrary evidence to that of Capt Lee.

In his report, Capt Lee determined that the fire originated near the entrance to the premises of Kee, where a double-point power switch was located (shown in photo No 14 on 1PB196). Placed near to the switch was a workbench which was used for spray-painting. Having examined the burnt patterns and the severe damage to that power switch fitting, he was of the opinion that a spark or sparks generated by the power switch could have ignited the paint residue which had accumulated at the location for several years. I should explain that Kee had only occupied the premises for about a year before the occurrence of the fire. Before him, the previous tenant had also been using the premises for carrying on the same kind of business.

So the question is whether can blame be placed upon either Carltech or Kee or both. Carltech says that the power switch was installed by the previous tenant. Accepting that, upon the termination of the previous tenancy, any installation done by the previous tenant, unless required to be removed by Carltech, would become a fixture of Carltech. There is no evidence that Kee knew the power switch was installed by the previous tenant and not by Carltech. The terms of the tenancy agreements which Carltech entered into with the various tenants of the building were similar. Clause 2(e) provided that the tenant was required to `keep ... the landlord`s fixture therein, including ... electric wiring and installations and fittings for light and power in clean condition and to replace or repair any part of ... the landlord`s fixture and fitting therein which shall be broken or damaged due to malicious negligence or careless acts or omissions of the tenant.` There was no breach by Kee of this provision when he continued to use the power switch. Kee had not done anything to cause the switch to be defective or damaged. It was undoubtedly an inherently defective switch. If no spark had escaped from the switch socket there would probably not have been any fire. A good switch, or a properly installed switch, would have contained the sparks, if any, within the socket itself.

Accordingly, I find there was a breach of duty on the part of Carltech in providing a defective power switch. However, in my view, there was also a breach of duty on the part of Kee in not appreciating the danger posed by the accumulation of paint-residue. The spark(s) would not have ignited but for the accumulated paint residue.

Even if I had imposed too high a standard of care on the part of Carltech and Kee in the preceding two paragraphs, the state of affairs which existed, to which both of them had contributed, constituted a nuisance, as actual knowledge is not an essential ingredient for this tort.

Cause for spread of fire

On the evidence there is no doubt that there was no adequate fire-fighting equipment either within the premises of Kee or within reasonable proximity of that premises. Having regard to the nature of the business that was being carried out by Kee, and the materials which he stored there (though not highly inflammable), he ought to have provided at least a portable fire extinguisher within the premises for his own use if the need should arise. If there were such a fire extinguisher that day which his employees could have used to combat the fire, it could well have made a difference. To this extent, Kee was in breach of his duty of care.

As mentioned before, there were two fire hose-reels on the ground level, just outside the building wall, which were within close proximity to Kee`s premises. Apart from the delay due to the locking of each of the tap head in a metal casing, both the hose-reels turned out to be entirely ineffective as there was hardly any water from the hoses to fight the fire even after the taps had been turned on. In my view, Carltech was at fault in locking up the tap heads in metal casings. The whole point of having a fire fighting equipment is that it should be readily accessible for use when the need arises. I have no doubt that had the two fire hose-reels, particularly the one on the ground floor by the side of the staircase leading directly to Kee`s premises, been in operational condition and no time had been lost to look for the keys to open the metal casings and turn on the taps, the fire which broke out in Kee`s premises would have been contained and put out. It would not have spread.

In cross examination, Carltech`s director, Tan Chin Bee, said that the fire hose-reels were checked in May 1997. In para 7 of the statement of claim the plaintiffs specifically raised the question of the inadequate supply of water or water pressure. Yet, no record was produced by Carltech of any alleged checking done on the fire hose-reels in May 1997 by the Civil Defence Force. Nor were the latter called by Carltech to testify. The only conclusion I can come to is that no checking was done at all. As for the locking of the tap head in the casing, Tan Chin Bee said it was not locked, only secured by a wire to prevent knocking into by forklifts. I do not see the need for...