Amus bin Pangkong v Jurong Shipyard: Breach of Statutory Duty & Negligence in Ship Repair

Amus bin Pangkong, an employee of Jurong Clavon Pte Ltd, appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the decision of the District Court, which had dismissed his claim for damages against Jurong Shipyard Limited and Jurong Clavon Pte Ltd for personal injuries sustained while working on a vessel. The High Court, Lai Siu Chiu J, allowed the appeal, finding that the respondents were negligent and in breach of their statutory duties under the Factories Act for failing to provide a safe working environment, including adequate supervision and safety equipment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal for personal injuries. The court found Jurong Shipyard and Jurong Clavon negligent for failing to provide a safe working environment.

1.7 Decision Date

23 April 2000

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Amus bin Pangkong	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Cheong Yuen Hee, Subbiah Pillai, Tiwary Anuradha
Jurong Shipyard Limited	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Basil Ong Kah Liang
Jurong Clavon Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Basil Ong Kah Liang

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Cheong Yuen Hee	Pillai & Pillai
Subbiah Pillai	Pillai & Pillai
Tiwary Anuradha	Pillai & Pillai
Basil Ong Kah Liang	Madhavan Louis & Partners

4. Facts

Amus bin Pangkong was employed by Jurong Clavon Pte Ltd as a general worker.
Jurong Shipyard Limited and Jurong Clavon Pte Ltd carry on the business of ship repairing.
On 12 February 1997, Amus bin Pangkong was instructed to carry out blastering work in the vessel Stolt Eagle.
The blastering work was carried out from a platform about 9.5 m from the bottom of the tank.
The tank was pitch dark except for light from workers' lamps.
Amus bin Pangkong fell to the bottom of the tank and suffered severe injuries.
Amus bin Pangkong was not wearing a safety belt when he was discovered.

5. Formal Citations

Amus bin Pangkong v Jurong Shipyard Limited and Another, DA 26/1999, [2000] SGHC 67

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1994-01-01	Amus bin Pangkong employed by Jurong Clavon Pte Ltd.
1997-02-12	Amus bin Pangkong injured while working on the vessel Stolt Eagle.
1999-10-28	District Court dismisses Amus bin Pangkong's claim.
2000-04-24	High Court allows the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Statutory Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents breached their statutory duty under s 33(3) of the Factories Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to provide safe means of access
  - Failure to maintain a safe working environment
- Related Cases:
  - [1968] AC 107
  - [1997] 3 SLR 677
Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents were negligent in failing to provide a safe system of work and adequate supervision.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to provide safety equipment
  - Failure to provide and implement safe system of work
  - Inadequate supervision
- Related Cases:
  - [1938] AC 57
  - [1899] 2 QB 338
  - [1944] KB 502
  - [1964] 1 WLR 768
  - [1992] 3 All ER 211
  - [1999] 4 SLR 579
  - [1953] AC 180
Occupier's Liability
- Outcome: The court found that the danger faced by the appellant was not unusual, and therefore the respondents were not liable as occupiers.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unusual danger
  - Duty of care to invitee
- Related Cases:
  - [1995] 2 SLR 716
  - [1966] AC 552
  - [1951] AC 737
  - [1949] 2 KB 519
  - [1952] 1 KB 141
  - [1983] 2 MLJ 51

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for personal injuries

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Breach of Statutory Duty
Occupier's Liability

10. Practice Areas

Personal Injury
Workplace Safety
Construction Law

11. Industries

Construction
Shipbuilding
Ship Repair

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Awang bin Dollah v Shun Shing Construction & Engineering Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 677	Singapore	Cited regarding the degree of control required to establish occupier's liability and the burden of proof under section 33(3) of the Factories Act.
Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa Eng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 716	Singapore	Cited for the four conditions required to establish liability for occupiers, but distinguished on the facts.
Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd	N/A	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's finding of fact unless the finding is plainly wrong.
Watt v Thomas	N/A	Yes	[1947] AC 484	N/A	Cited for the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's finding of fact unless the finding is plainly wrong.
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co v English	N/A	Yes	[1938] AC 57	N/A	Cited for defining the employer's duty to provide a competent staff, adequate material, and a proper system and effective supervision.
Williams v Birmingham Battery and Metal Co	N/A	Yes	[1899] 2 QB 338	N/A	Cited for the employer's duty to provide adequate equipment to their workers.
Lovell v Blundells & T Albert Cromptom & Co	N/A	Yes	[1944] KB 502	N/A	Cited for the employer's duty to provide adequate equipment to their workers.
Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1964] 1 WLR 768	N/A	Cited for the employer's duty to provide adequate equipment to their workers.
Pape v Cumbria County Council	N/A	Yes	[1992] 3 All ER 211	N/A	Cited for the employer's duty to devise a suitable system of work and instruct his men in what they must do.
Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 579	Singapore	Cited for the employer's responsibility for the general organisation and the duty to check that the system is followed by its employees.
General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas	N/A	Yes	[1953] AC 180	N/A	Cited for the employer's duty to exercise reasonable care to see that his system of working is complied with and that necessary safety precautions are observed.
Wheat v E Lacon and Co Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1966] AC 552	N/A	Cited for the definition of an 'occupier' and the degree of control required over premises.
Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1968] AC 107	N/A	Cited for the principle that the burden of proving what is reasonably practicable under s 33(3) of the Factories Act lies on the person responsible for maintaining the safety of the workplace.
London Graving Dock Co v Horton	N/A	Yes	[1951] AC 737	N/A	Cited for the definition of an unusual risk, but distinguished on the facts.
Stowell v Railway Executive	N/A	Yes	[1949] 2 KB 519	N/A	Cited as an example of an unusual danger.
Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1952] 1 KB 141	N/A	Cited as an example of a danger that was not unusual.
Lee Lau & Sons Realty Sdn Bhd v Tan Yah & Ors	N/A	Yes	[1983] 2 MLJ 51	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the occupier's duty is confined to protection against unusual dangers, but distinguished on the facts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 33(3) Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 33(7) Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Blastering
Safety belt
Shipyard
Occupier
Statutory duty
Negligence
Safe system of work
Supervision
Factories Act

15.2 Keywords

Personal injury
Negligence
Breach of statutory duty
Occupier's liability
Shipyard
Safety
Factories Act
Singapore
Ship Repair

16. Subjects

Tort Law
Employment Law
Occupational Safety
Construction Dispute

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Breach of Statutory Duty
Negligence
Occupier's Liability
Ship Repairing