Case Details
- Citation: [2020] SGHC 184
- Title: ST Building Solutions Pte Ltd v FortyTwo Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 1 September 2020
- Hearing Dates: 9 June 2020; 14 July 2020
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Suit No: 739 of 2019
- Assessment of Damages No: 4 of 2020
- Plaintiff/Applicant: ST Building Solutions Pte Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: FortyTwo Pte Ltd
- Legal Area: Damages (Assessment) in tort
- Statutes Referenced: Civil Law Act
- Cases Cited: [2020] SGHC 184 (as reported); Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623
- Judgment Length: 17 pages, 5,081 words
Summary
This case arose out of a flooding incident between neighbouring leased warehouse units. The plaintiff, ST Building Solutions Pte Ltd (“ST Building”), leased a first-floor warehouse unit directly below the defendant’s unit. Between 10 and 11 February 2019, a fire hose in the defendant’s unit began leaking, causing water to overflow and flood ST Building’s unit. Liability in tort was conceded by the defendant, and interlocutory judgment was entered in ST Building’s favour. The High Court then proceeded to assess damages.
The central dispute at the assessment stage was not whether the flooding occurred, but what losses ST Building could prove—particularly the quantum of damage to its goods. ST Building claimed, among other heads, $446,687.49 for “loss in respect of the goods that were damaged”, plus additional consequential losses. Although ST Building relied on internal lists of “damaged/wet” goods, photographs, and supplier letters recommending disposal due to moisture exposure, the court found that ST Building had not discharged its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, the fact and extent of damage to the goods in the quantities recorded.
Ultimately, the court rejected ST Building’s evidence as insufficient to establish the quantum of damage. The assessment therefore turned into a cautionary tale on evidential discipline in damages claims: where the plaintiff’s proof of “what was damaged” and “how badly” is not sufficiently grounded in reliable inspection and traceable documentation, the court will not award damages merely because liability is conceded.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
ST Building is a Singapore-incorporated company supplying partition and ceiling boards. From 1 May 2016 to 31 May 2019, it leased a first-floor warehouse unit (“the Unit”) for storage of goods. The defendant, FortyTwo Pte Ltd (“FortyTwo”), also incorporated in Singapore, leased the unit one floor above. The physical arrangement meant that any leakage in the upper unit could plausibly affect goods stored below.
Sometime between 10 and 11 February 2019, a fire hose in FortyTwo’s unit started to leak. Water overflowed and flooded ST Building’s Unit. Shortly after the incident, on 12 February 2019, ST Building notified its insurer’s appointed loss adjusters, McLarens Singapore Pte Ltd (“McLarens”). On McLarens’ advice, ST Building prepared a “Draft List” describing and quantifying goods allegedly damaged by the flooding.
On 22 February 2019, ST Building and McLarens conducted a joint inspection of the damaged goods. McLarens purportedly “verified” the Draft List. In an email dated 27 February 2019, McLarens informed ST Building that three types of goods in the Draft List were “not available/found” during the joint inspection, and that the quantity of another “damaged” item should be increased. ST Building then amended the Draft List and produced an “Initial List” of 58 types of “damaged” goods. Later, ST Building corrected an error in classification—two different types of boards were mistakenly treated as one—and produced a “Final List” containing 59 types of “damaged” goods.
On 14 March 2019, ST Building informed FortyTwo that it would seek recovery and invited FortyTwo to appoint its own loss adjuster to independently verify the damage by 21 March 2019. FortyTwo did not inspect the goods. ST Building’s demands for compensation did not succeed. It disposed of the damaged goods between end-April and early-May 2019, close to the end of its lease period. On 22 July 2019, ST Building commenced suit. FortyTwo conceded liability, and interlocutory judgment was entered on 24 October 2019. The present judgment concerned assessment of damages.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal legal issue was the assessment of damages in tort, specifically whether ST Building proved the fact and quantum of its claimed losses. While liability was conceded, the court emphasised that compensation in tort aims to place the plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the tort not been committed. That requires proof not only that damage occurred, but also the extent of damage and the monetary value of the loss.
Within that overarching question, the “central question” was what damage the flooding caused to ST Building’s goods. ST Building’s other heads of loss depended on the answer to this question. If the goods were not shown to be damaged (or not shown to be damaged in the quantities claimed), then consequential losses such as disposal costs, labour costs, freight forwarding costs, and loss of use of the Unit would also fail or be reduced.
A further evidential issue arose from the plaintiff’s reliance on its internal lists and photographs. The court had to determine whether ST Building’s documentation and supporting materials—particularly the Initial and Final Lists, photographs of goods in the Unit, and supplier letters—were sufficiently reliable and sufficiently linked to specific items and quantities to establish the quantum of damage on a balance of probabilities.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by restating the applicable burden of proof. Compensation in tort is intended to put the plaintiff in the same position as if the tort had not been committed. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, both the fact of damage and its quantum. The court cited Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 at [27] for this proposition. This framing mattered because it meant that concession of liability did not relieve ST Building of the need for rigorous proof at the assessment stage.
Turning to the largest head of loss—$446,687.49 for damaged goods—the court focused on what evidence ST Building provided to show both (i) which goods were damaged and (ii) the extent of damage to each item. ST Building’s case was that all goods recorded in the Initial and Final Lists were damaged to such an extent that they had “no residual market value”. It relied on an expert report prepared by its loss adjuster, Mr Ong Leong Koen, which in turn relied on supplier letters and photographs showing flooding within the Unit.
Supplier letters generally stated that exposure to moisture would lead to damage such as rusting or mould/fungus development, and/or that the goods were sensitive to moisture, with recommendations that exposed goods be disposed of. Photographs showed stacks of goods standing in water. ST Building argued that, based on these materials, it was entitled to recover the difference in market value of the goods immediately prior to and after the incident, and that the “no residual market value” position meant it could claim the entire pre-incident market value of the “damaged” goods as recorded in the Final List.
However, the court found that ST Building failed to discharge its burden of proving quantum. Notably, FortyTwo adduced no evidence of its own regarding actual quantities or extent of damage, partly because it did not physically inspect the goods. But the court held that the absence of defence evidence did not automatically entitle ST Building to its claimed figure. The plaintiff’s evidence had to be sufficient in the first place.
On the Initial and Final Lists, the court identified a fundamental gap: ST Building did not provide a basis—within the lists or elsewhere—to show that its goods were actually “damaged” or “wet” in the quantities recorded. The court described the inspection process used to compile the lists as “a mystery”. It was unclear whether a visual and/or physical inspection had even been performed before ST Building concluded that each quantity recorded was “damaged” or “wet”. This uncertainty was critical because the court could not simply assume that the labels “damaged” and “wet” were accurate reflections of the physical condition of each item.
The court also scrutinised the photographs. Many goods were wrapped in packaging, film wrap, and/or polyethylene (PE) sheets at the time of the incident. ST Building’s witness, Mr Lee, testified that if there was “water [on the] outside” of wrapped goods, it meant that whatever was inside was damaged. The court accepted that in some cases one could infer internal damage without unwrapping—particularly where wrapping is transparent and visible water marks appear on goods inside. But even then, the court held that ST Building failed to show with specificity that it had properly inspected wrapped goods. There was no evidence of (a) the quantities of goods that were wrapped, (b) whether the state of the wrapping allowed one to ascertain internal wetness without removing it, or (c) if not, whether ST Building removed wrapping before concluding that goods inside were “damaged” or “wet”.
Additionally, the court noted that the person who prepared the Initial and Final Lists, ST Building’s financial manager, was not called as a witness. The managing director, Mr Lee Yong Seng, testified that he “checked” the lists but provided no details about how he did so. This absence of direct testimony from the list-preparer undermined the reliability of the lists as evidence of actual damage. The court further considered McLarens’ supposed verification. While McLarens had “verified” the Draft List during the joint inspection, ST Building did not call McLarens to explain what was done during that inspection. ST Building’s explanation—that there was “simply no need” to call McLarens because the evidence showed McLarens had conducted a physical inspection—was rejected as insufficient. The “evidence” relied on was merely an email exchange, which did not describe what McLarens actually did during the joint inspection.
In light of these deficiencies, the court was not satisfied that ST Building’s goods were actually damaged or wet in the quantities recorded in the Initial and Final Lists. This conclusion had a domino effect. If the quantities of damaged goods were not proven, then the expert’s market value assessment based on those quantities could not stand.
Even where the photographs showed some goods had been wet, the court held that photographs did not assist in determining the disputed issues of quantity and extent of wetting. The plaintiff did not specifically link photographs to particular “damaged” items or to specific quantities recorded in the lists. The court therefore treated the photographs as showing that flooding occurred and that some goods were affected, but not as proof of the precise quantum claimed.
Finally, the court addressed the supplier letters. While supplier letters may support the proposition that moisture exposure can cause damage and justify disposal, the court indicated that they were premised on the assumption that the goods supplied had indeed been exposed to standing water. If ST Building could not prove that the goods were wet/damaged in the quantities recorded, the supplier letters could not bridge that evidential gap. In other words, the letters could not substitute for proof of the factual premise on which they were based.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed ST Building’s claim to the extent it depended on the unproven quantum of damage to its goods. Because ST Building failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that its goods were damaged or wet in the quantities recorded in the Initial and Final Lists, the court was not satisfied that the claimed $446,687.49 for damaged goods was recoverable. As the other heads of loss depended on the central question of what damage was caused to the goods, the assessment did not proceed on the plaintiff’s claimed figures.
Practically, the decision underscores that even where liability is conceded, the plaintiff must still prove damages with credible, itemised, and traceable evidence. The court’s approach reflects a strict evidential standard at the assessment stage, particularly where the goods were disposed of before trial and the defendant was not given the opportunity to inspect.
Why Does This Case Matter?
ST Building Solutions v FortyTwo is significant for practitioners because it illustrates the limits of “concession of liability” in tort claims. A defendant’s concession does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden to prove quantum. Courts will scrutinise the evidential foundation for claimed losses, especially when the plaintiff’s proof relies on internal documentation and assumptions rather than demonstrable inspection and itemised linkage between evidence and claimed quantities.
The case also provides a practical checklist for damages claims involving physical goods that are later disposed of. Where goods are destroyed or discarded, the plaintiff must ensure that inspection evidence is contemporaneous, detailed, and capable of being tested. This includes calling relevant witnesses (such as the person who prepared the loss lists), explaining the inspection methodology, and—where possible—calling the loss adjuster who conducted or verified the inspection. The failure to call McLarens, coupled with the lack of detail about what was done during the joint inspection, proved fatal to the plaintiff’s ability to establish quantum.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the decision highlights the importance of inviting independent verification and documenting the defendant’s response. ST Building did invite FortyTwo to appoint a loss adjuster, but the court still required ST Building to prove its own case with sufficient reliability. For defendants, the case shows that even if no evidence is adduced, the plaintiff’s burden remains; a defendant can rely on the plaintiff’s failure to meet its evidential threshold.
Legislation Referenced
- Civil Law Act (Singapore) (as referenced in the judgment)
Cases Cited
- Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623
- ST Building Solutions Pte Ltd v FortyTwo Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 184
Source Documents
This article analyses [2020] SGHC 184 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.