LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Zhang Wan Bo v Poh Kay Leong and Another [2002] SGHC 274

The court found the defendant solely liable for negligence after he reversed his car without checking the rear, and rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Sim Lee Keng Cindy v Paul Bayliss Brown (Vythilingam s/o Packirisamy and Another, Third Parties) [2002] SGHC 271

The court held that both the defendant and the first Third Party were equally liable for the collision due to their respective failures to maintain a proper lookout and to exercise due care.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Kong Chok Wai v Ha Siew Sen and Another [2002] SGHC 265

The court found the first defendant solely liable for the accident due to negligent overtaking at excessive speed, while the bus driver was found not to have contributed to the accident.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

S T Capital Limited v Stamford Tyres International Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 256

The burden of proof in an action for damages for negligence rests primarily on the plaintiffs, and the court must evaluate the evidence in its totality to determine if the threshold for negligence has been met.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chen Qingrui suing by her father and next friend Tan Kok Kiong v Phua Geok Leng [2001] SGHC 64

A driver is liable for negligence when driving too close to a kerb at excessive speed, but a pedestrian is contributorily negligent for failing to use a nearby pedestrian crossing.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Xu Jin Long v Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 325

Any contractual term that prevents a party from being sued in negligence for death or personal injury is a restriction of liability under s 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and is unenforceable.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Vasuhi d/o Ramasamypillai v Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 30

A doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, provided that the opinion has a logical basis.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Dr Khoo James and Another v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy and another appeal

The Bolam test, as supplemented by Bolitho, requires that medical expert opinion must satisfy a threshold test of logic to be considered a responsible body of opinion, but the court should not adjudicate between competing respectable medical opinions.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Tan Kok Lam (next friend to Teng Eng) v Hong Choon Peng

A person who is rendered permanently unconscious due to another's negligence is entitled to claim substantial damages for loss of amenities, as this is an objective loss of capacity to enjoy life, distinct from pain and suffering.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Ronnie Tan Siew bin v Chin Wee Keong [2000] SGHC 82

The court found the defendant negligent for failing to keep a proper look-out and failing to steer the van on a safe course, resulting in a collision with the plaintiff's car.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Sim Chiang Lee and Others v Lee Hock Chuan and Others [2000] SGHC 270

The court found that the fire was caused by an electrical short circuit in the third defendants' premises due to negligence in maintaining electrical cables and failing to use proper fuses.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Rajendran A/L Palany v Dril-Quip Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2000] SGHC 245

The court found the employer liable for failing to provide a safe system of work in urgent circumstances, leading to the plaintiff's back injury.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Bernice Amelia Tan v Loh Chee Song [2000] SGHC 197

The court found the defendant wholly liable for the collision after determining the plaintiff had the right of way and the defendant had wrongfully driven into her path.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

CHRISTIAN JOACHIM POLLMANN v YE XIANRONG

A defendant who raises the defence of contributory negligence bears the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities. The court found that the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff contributed to the collision.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

DURAIRAJ SANTIRAN v SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED

The court dismissed a negligence claim by a flight steward against his employer, finding that the claimant failed to prove the existence of a slippery area on the aircraft floor and that the employer had discharged its duty of care through adequate training and safety measures.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Bian Xiaofan v Changheng (Singapore) Engineering Pte. Ltd & Anor

The Claimant failed to prove the factual basis of his negligence claim, specifically that his co-workers suddenly released their hold on the glass panel without warning, causing his injury.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Def. glossary
Legal Maxim: Novus Actus Interveniens
Novus Actus Interveniens is a legal doctrine that breaks the chain of causation, relieving a defendant of liability when an unforeseeable, independent act intervenes between their action and the resulting harm.
Read full entry