TORT CASEShttp://tinyurl.com/classiccaselaw

Reference www.singaporelaw.sg Singapore Business Law by Benny

Tabalujan and Valerie Du Toit-Low

Negligence: Duty of Care Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a

bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by Stephenson

Mrs D found a decomposed snail in it, fell ill

Mrs D had no contract with Stephenson

Negligence: Duty of Care House of Lords: Mrs D could sue in tort,

not contract Stephenson owed a Duty of Care –

You must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour

Your neighbour is someone closely and directly affected by my actions

Negligence: Duty of Care Anns leased a block of flats from a

builder There were defects in construction The London Borough of Merton had

approved construction Did London Borough of Merton owe a

Duty to Anns?

Negligence: Duty of Care House of Lords: Yes, the test is

Was there a relationship of proximity between them, so that carelessness would cause damage? Yes

Are there any reasons to reduce this duty? No

Negligence: Breach of Duty Wells pulled on a door handle made by

Cooper (amateur carpenter) The door handle fell off and Wells fell

down the stairs

Negligence: Breach of Duty Court: Cooper had not breached his duty

of care He had met the standard of a reasonable

amateur carpenter, he was not an expert

Negligence: Breach of Duty Bolton’s house was near a cricket field

owned by Stone Bolton was hit by a cricket ball The balls usually did not reach this far,

only happened 6 times in 30 years

Negligence: Breach of Duty House of Lords: There was a Duty of

Care, but the Duty was not breached The chances of that happening were too

small for the club to take steps to prevent them

Negligence: Breach of Duty Latimer worked in AEC Ltd’s factory The factory became flooded and

management did everything possible to clear the effects of the flood, but the factory floor was still slippery

Latimer walked on the floor, fell and was injured

Negligence: Breach of Duty House of Lords: There was a Duty of

Care, but there was no breach The risk was not great enough to justify

the management doing further steps like closing the factory

Negligence: Breach must cause damage

Barnett was poisoned with arsenic without his knowledge – at the time there was no cure

He went to A&E but the doctor failed to diagnose him

He died at home 5 hours later

Negligence: Breach must cause damage

Court: There was a Duty of Care The Duty of Care had been breached BUT the breach did not cause his death –

he would have died anyway

Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness)

The ship Wagon Mound was loading fuel oil at a wharf

Defendant was negligent and spilled fuel oil, which spread to the next wharf, owned by Plaintiff

Plaintiff received expert advice that the fuel oil would not burn in water, so he let his workers continue welding at the wharf

The welding sparks ignited the fuel and fire damaged Plaintiff’s wharf

Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness)

Privy Council – It was too remote / unforeseeable that the fuel oil would burn in water

Since the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, Defendant would not be liable

Negligence: Defences Xu Jin Long was a construction worker

working for Nian Chuan Construction Xu walked up a metal staircase to his

dorm, it collapsed and he fell 5 metres to the ground

Nian Chuan Construction had given instructions for the staircase to be removed

Negligence: Defences High Court: Nian Chuan had given

instructions to dismantle, but had not given warning not to use the stairs or cordoned it of

A reasonable worker would not have known

Xu had no contributory negligence, NC were fully liable

Negligent Statements: Duty of Care Hedley Byrne Co were advertising

agents who wanted credit info on a new client Easipower before doing work, so they asked Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners

Heller told Hedley Byrne that Easipower was “respectably constituted … good for ordinary business”

Easipower collapsed

Negligent Statements: Duty of Care House of Lords: There was a special

relationship because Hedley Byrne could reasonably rely on

Heller’s judgment Heller gave HB info that they knew HB would

rely on Therefore Heller owed a duty of care to HB (Special case: Heller escaped because

they had an exclusion clause)

Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty

Yeo Yoke Mui engaged lawyer Ng Liang Poh to check a corner terrace house before purchase

Ng got a road interpretation plan from LTA “land is affected by Cat 4 and 5 roads”

Following standard procedure, Ng forwarded the plan to Yeo

Yeo paid the deposit, later discovered that land affected by Cat 4 roads cannot be redeveloped

Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty

Court of Appeal: It was not enough for Ng to following standard procedure and forwarding the plan

In this case, because of the special nature of Cat 4 roads, Ng should have explained it to Yeo as well

Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff

SDP wrote an article about the NKF scandal “Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an

aberration of the PAP system. It is, instead, a product of it.”

“How does this compare to the PAP? The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is a business entity set up, and chaired, by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to manage and invest our national reserves.”

Is not power in Singapore centred around one party, if not one individual?”

Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff

There was “defamation by implication” – the reader was invited to compare a person (LKY) with another disreputable individual (Chairman of NKF) – implying that LKY was also dishonest

The words were capable of being understood to refer to both LHL and LKY

The ordinary reader would have understood the words as referring to both LHL and LKY

Defamation: Defences SICC posted a Notice on the notice boards

of their clubhouses. They suspended KSP's club membership

because she had falsely declared Mr Ng Kong Yeam ("NKY") as her spouse to make use of the Club's facilities since September 1992,

The marriage certificate showed that her marriage to NKY was only registered on 24 August 2005

Defamation: Defences It was defamatory – created an ill

opinion of KSP in the mind of the reasonable reader and to cause KSP to be shunned or avoided as a result

BUT SICC had the defence of Justification: The statement of KSP's dishonest conduct was substantially true!