 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric 2007 SGCA 36 is a leading case in the Singapore law of contract and tort. It clarified the law of causation in tort, outlined the test for causation in contract as being the same as the but-for test in tort, and considered when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd is a company that intended to build a new factory in 1994. [1] It engaged a contractor to do so, with Eric Ng as a project architect. A design-and-build contract was entered into by Sunny Metal and the contractor, which detailed one of Ng's responsibilities as an architect as "assist[ing] the Superintending Officer in the supervision of the Works" (cl 12A). [2] Additionally, cll 17A and s 17B of the contract respectively stipulated that "[t]he Contractor shall programme and complete the Works... in such a manner that the Contractor's Architect can apply and obtain for the Employer a Temporary Occupation Permit" and "[t]he Contractor shall effect and complete any amendment required by the relevant authorities and... ensure that the Architect apply and obtain the Certificate of Statutory Completion..." [2]
An indemnity deed was also signed between Sunny Metal and Ng, with cl 1 stipulating that Ng had to "exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of their duties to the Contractor and/or the Employer". [2] Prior to and during construction, Ng also adopted a number of responsibilities, including the chairmanship of meetings, monitoring of project work, and liaison with the contractor regarding a conflict of interest issue. [3] Eventually, due to delays, SME terminated the contract and sued Ng for breach of contract and negligence. The contractor was liquidated in 2000. SME contended that Ng owed multiple duties in addition to his work as an architect, specifically:
The case was heard before the High Court but was later appealed to the Court of Appeal. On the first issue, the trial court had found that Ng had adopted a duty under cl 1 for three reasons:
First, the trial judge held that the purpose of cl 1 could not be to merely reiterate the limited duties which Eric Ng owed to SME as a QP since, if this were the correct interpretation, cl 1 would not have any real effect and would be an exercise in "legal redundancy and futility" (at [21] and [32]). Secondly, the trial judge found that the context under which the third D&B contract was entered into between SME and PMC, including the discomfort SME felt in entering into the said contract, showed "why [SME] wanted the additional (legal) protection afforded by the Deed" [emphasis in original] (at [32]). Thirdly, the trial judge also relied on the fact that Eric Ng had performed various duties that clearly went beyond the narrow scope of duties he alleged he had assumed, including carrying out various administrative roles... [5]
On appeal, the court rejected this finding, ruling that cl 1 was merely meant to create a legal relationship between Ng and Sunny Metal, serving as a collateral warranty that allowed Sunny Metal the contractual privity to sue Ng if Ng did not perform his duties. It did not confer upon Ng any additional duties. The court arrived to this conclusion considering the context in which the contract was entered into. [6]
On the second issue in negligence, the court found that Ng did not owe an additional tortious duty of care to Sunny Metal, as there was no proximity between Sunny Metal and Ng. As the court previously found that the deed did not impose additional responsibilities on Ng, they concluded that the deed did not also impose duties in tort. The court also considered whether a tortious duty existed notwithstanding the deed not imposing additional duties. They found that no such duty existed, as Sunny Metal did not rely on Ng, for there was already a project coordinator who Sunny Metal relied upon to supervise the project. [7]
Apart from a finding of duty, the court considered if there was causation between Ng's purported breach and the losses incurred by Sunny Metal. They found no causation. The court arrived at this conclusion by first differentiating causation and remoteness as two separate legal concepts. Causation as a concept was further differentiated into "causation in fact" and "causation in law", the former being an inquiry of "cause and effect" and the latter being an inquiry of whether a causer of an event should be held legally responsible for their actions. Legal causation may not be found if there is a novus actus interveniens. [8] As for remoteness, the court found that the test for establishing if an effect was sufficiently remote from a cause would be that of reasonable foreseeability. [9]
Considering the present facts, the court noted that the "but for" test of causation would apply in issues of both contract and tort. [10] They found that there was no causation on the "but for" test. [11]
The court also considered whether a reversel of the burden of proof would be appropriate in the present case. The court ruled that whilst "an inference of causation may be drawn even in the absence of affirmative scientific evidence of causation, or where the claimant's evidence of causation is minimal", [12] the present case was not one where the burden of proof could be reversed for "the claimant, defendant, and harm were not indeterminate". [13]
Justice Andrew Phang in the High Court's judgment had attempted to reconcile the competing English cases of Caparo and Anns in the judgment, but V. K. Rajah in the Court of Appeal left the matter open, only for the test to be conclusively decided by Phang in the appeals case of Spandeck v Defence Science and Technology Agency. [14] The High Court judgment was one of Phang's attempts at resolving the test of tortious duty in Singapore, [15] and has remained influential in a number of academic articles, particularly in reference to understanding the Spandeck judgment. [16] [17] [18]
Phang's original judgment, before it was overturned, was noted to have been the first case in which "a design professional employed by a contractor owes a duty of care to the employed under a design-and-build contract and that his duty is owed until the completion of works. [19]
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. Major areas of law – particularly administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property law and tort law – are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes. However, other areas of law, such as criminal law, company law and family law, are almost completely statutory in nature.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 (CP) is a leading English tort law case that first introduced the concept of the reasonable person in law.
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.
Breaking the chain refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance.
Harriton v Stephens, was a decision of the High Court of Australia handed down on 9 May 2006, in which the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim brought by a disabled woman seeking the right to compensation for being born after negligent medical advice that resulted in her mother's pregnancy not being terminated.
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson[1991] EWCA Civ 12 is an English contract law case on misrepresentation. It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation.
Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978] QB 791 is an English contract law case, concerning remoteness of damage. In it, the majority held that losses for breach of contract are recoverable if the type or kind of loss is a likely result of the breach of contract. Lord Denning MR, dissenting on the reasoning, held that a distinction should be drawn between losses for physical damage and economic losses.
Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".
AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58 is an English trust law case, concerning the applicable principles of causation for a breach of trust. It held that a "but for" test of causation applies for equitable compensation.
March v Stramare Pty Ltd Pty Ltd was a High Court of Australia case decided in 1991 on Australian tort law. The case considered the conditions required for causation to be established in tort law, the limitations of the "but for" test and the significance of an intervening act by a third party in determining causation. In this case, the High Court held that, although it was useful in clarifying the facts of the case, the but-for test was not the exclusive test in determining causation as it posed difficulties in attributing responsibility for damages in two key types of cases. The first was in cases when attributing responsibility in cases where the damage was caused by the negligence of more than one party, and the second was in cases where the damage resulted from an intervening act. Instead, the court favoured a case-by-case basis approach in attributing legal responsibility for causation, which took both common sense principles and public policy concerns into consideration when coming to a decision.
The first Tort Law in China wasn't enacted until 2009, though ideas similar concepts about social obligations and duties can be found in Confucianism upon which Ancient Chinese law was based.
Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37 was a landmark decision in Singapore law. It established a new framework for establishing a duty of care, differentiating the Singaporean law of tort from past English common law precedent such as Caparo v Dickman and Anns v Merton, whilst also allowing for claims in pure economic loss, which are generally not allowed in English law.
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee[2011] SGCA 2 is a leading case in the law of negligence in Singapore. It was an appeal to the Singapore Court of Appeal by Animal Concerns Research & Education Society (ACRES) on a lawsuit alleging that a contractor had polluted land. The court found in favour of ACRES, awarding over $25 million in damages, but ACRES was unable to recover much of it as Tan was unable to pay.
