LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Kanafatty s/o Krishnan v Chan Chee Loong Peter [2003] SGHC 223

The court apportioned liability for a traffic accident at 75% to the defendant and 25% to the plaintiff, finding that while the defendant's reversing was the primary cause, the plaintiff's inattention contributed to the collision.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

F v Chan Tanny [2003] SGHC 192

In professional negligence, there is no liability without proof of fault. The fact that a baby is born damaged is not in itself evidence of negligence.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Bernard Desker Gary and Others v Thwaites Racing Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 175

A trainer is not liable for negligent advice regarding a horse's suitability for racing if the advice was given in the capacity of a trainer and not a veterinarian, and the owner was advised to seek veterinary opinion.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

D v Kong Sim Guan [2003] SGHC 165

A medical practitioner does not owe a duty of care to a third party (the father) when assessing a child for potential sexual abuse, as there is no relationship of proximity and it is not just and reasonable to impose such a duty. Furthermore, proceedings before the Singapore Medi

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

P.T. Bumi International Tankers (formerly known as P.T. Bumi Indonesia Tankers) v Man B&W Diesel S.E. Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Mirrlees Blackstone (S.E. Asia) Pte Ltd) and Another [2003] SGHC 152

A manufacturer of a custom-built engine owes a duty of care in tort to the shipowner for pure economic loss arising from defective design, even in the absence of a direct contract, where there is sufficient proximity based on the manufacturer's knowledge of the owner's requiremen

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd and Others (Adventure Training Systems Pty Ltd, Third Party) [2003] SGHC 134

The court held that the suppliers of adventure training equipment were liable for negligence due to inadequate training and failure to ensure the equipment was fit for purpose, specifically regarding the compatibility of the stop descender with the rope used.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Zhao Feng Guo v Tan Hong Soon trading as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of Intense Engineering Construction [2003] SGHC 128

The court assessed damages for a personal injury claim, determining pre-trial and future loss of earnings based on the plaintiff's earning capacity in China following his repatriation, and applying a multiplier of nine for future loss of earnings.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Yeo Nai Meng v Ei-Nets Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 110

In Yeo Nai Meng v Ei-Nets Ltd [2003], the High Court ruled that while internal reports to directors were protected by qualified privilege, wider circulation was not. The court awarded the plaintiff $80,000 in damages, dismissing the defendants' counterclaims.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

L.K. Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Private Limited [2002] SGHC 309

In L.K. Ang Construction v Chubb Singapore, the High Court ruled that no binding sub-contract existed as parties intended for a formal agreement. While the plaintiff succeeded in a libel claim, the breach of contract claim failed due to lack of a finalized agreement and insufficient evidence of work

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Kang Hock Seng Paul v Lee Teck Nam [2002] SGHC 308

The court held that a driver who loses control of their vehicle due to an emergency (avoiding a pedestrian) is not negligent, and that the presence of a tow-truck with flashing lights provides sufficient warning to other road users.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Niranjan Dolly K v Toh Laye Lan [2002] SGHC 294

This case established that absolute privilege extends to a solicitor's correspondence aimed at protecting a client's interests during litigation. The court held that warnings against witness tampering are protected to ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
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

Yunnan Baiyao Group Co Ltd v Tong Jum Chew Pte Ltd & Another [2002] SGHC 246

In Yunnan Baiyao Group Co Ltd v Tong Jum Chew Pte Ltd & Another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Tort — Passing off.

Sushant Shukla· ·4 min read
Singapore

Epolar System Enterprise Pte Ltd and Others v Lee Hock Chuan and Others [2002] SGHC 214

The court held that findings of fact from a previous trial are not evidence in a separate and independent trial, and that an owner of premises does not owe a duty of care to third parties to make periodic checks on the electrical system.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Ng Swee Eng (administrator of the estate of Tan Chee Wee, deceased) v Ang Oh Chuan [2002] SGHC 137

In Ng Swee Eng v Ang Oh Chuan [2002] SGHC 137, the Court apportioned liability at 80% to the defendant and 20% to the deceased motorcyclist for contributory negligence, ruling that having the right of way does not absolve a motorist of the duty to keep a proper lookout.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 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

Pai Lily v Yeo Peng Hock Henry [2001] SGHC 58

In Pai Lily v Yeo Peng Hock Henry [2001] SGHC 58, the High Court held a doctor liable for medical negligence and breach of duty. The court ruled the claim was not time-barred, establishing that the limitation period begins only when a plaintiff reasonably discovers the causal link via expert advice.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 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

Abani Trading Pte Ltd v P T Delta Karina Mandiri and Another [2001] SGHC 310

The court held that Poh Fang induced a breach of contract by Delta and converted Abani's goods, and ordered damages to be assessed by the Registrar.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Nicholas Hugh Bertram Malcomson and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta [2001] SGHC 309

The court recognised the tort of harassment in Singapore, holding that a course of conduct which is sufficiently repetitive and causes worry, emotional distress, or annoyance to another person is actionable.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta [2001] SGHC 308

The court recognised the tort of intentional harassment in Singapore, allowing for injunctive relief against persistent conduct that causes emotional distress, even in the absence of physical injury.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read