Wong Jin Fah v L & M Prestressing: Construction Site Accident, Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence, Occupier's Liability

In Wong Jin Fah (suing by his next friend Ho Chia Hao) v L & M Prestressing Pte Ltd and Others, the High Court of Singapore heard a case arising from a construction site accident where the plaintiff, Wong Jin Fah, was injured by falling metal formwork. The plaintiff sued L & M Prestressing Pte Ltd (first defendants), Hoe Hoe Engineering Pte Ltd (second defendants), Wei Sin Construction Pte Ltd (third defendants), and Sin Chynta Construction Pte Ltd (fourth defendants) for negligence, breach of occupier's liability, and breach of statutory duty. The court found the first, third, and fourth defendants liable for the accident, awarding one interlocutory judgment against them in favor of the plaintiff. The claim against the second defendant was dismissed with costs. The first third party, Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd, was ordered to indemnify the first and third defendants for their liability to the plaintiff.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the first, third, and fourth defendants; claim against the second defendant dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Wong Jin Fah sued for injuries sustained at a construction site due to negligence and breach of statutory duty. The court found the first, third, and fourth defendants liable.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Cosmic Insurance Corp LtdThird PartyCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd formerly known as Citystate Insurance Pte LtdThird PartyCorporationIndemnification OrderOther
L &M Prestressing Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost
Wong Jin Fah (suing by his next friend Ho Chia Hao)PlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Hoe Hoe Engineering Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Wei Sin Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost
Sin Chynta Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost
Tan Ken Siong of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Fazal MohamedB. Rao K.S. Rajah
K AnparasanWilliam Chai & Rama
Vinodh CoomaraswamyShook Lin & Bok
Dylan LeeShook Lin & Bok
Stanley LimShook Lin & Bok
Lim YongLim Hua Yong & Co
James YuYu & Co
Tan Hong SengJoseph Tan Jude Benny Anne Choo
Tan Ken SiongIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was struck on the head by a piece of metal formwork that fell from a building under construction.
  2. The accident occurred on 2 September 1999 at a construction site.
  3. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries, including open fractures on his forehead and right frontal sinus.
  4. The first defendants were the main contractors for the construction project.
  5. The third defendants were subcontractors for structural works.
  6. The fourth defendants were subcontractors for fabrication and erection of the formwork.
  7. The plaintiff was supervising the delivery and unloading of roof trusses when the accident occurred.
  8. Two Thai workers of the fourth defendants were dismantling metal formworks at the fourth storey of the building.
  9. The metal formwork fell due to a worker losing his grip.
  10. There was inadequate overhead protection along the periphery of the building.
  11. The safety net surrounding the second storey platform was inadequate.
  12. The first defendants were convicted for breach of reg 5(1) under the Act, to which they pleaded guilty.
  13. The fourth defendants' workers were inexperienced and unqualified.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wong Jin Fah (suing by his next friend Ho Chia Hao) v L & M Prestressing Pte Ltd and Others (Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd) and Another, Third Parties), Suit 474/2000, [2001] SGHC 249

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Building contract awarded to L & M Prestressing Pte Ltd.
Insurance policy period commenced.
Insurance policy period commenced for Wei Sin Construction Pte Ltd.
Letter of award between the first and second defendants.
U Chian engaged by the second defendants.
Plaintiff started working at the site.
Oral agreement between the third and fourth defendants.
Accident occurred; plaintiff injured by falling metal formwork.
Plaintiff transferred to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
Insurance policy period ended for Wei Sin Construction Pte Ltd.
First defendants pleaded guilty to the amended charge under section 88(1) of the Factories Act.
Proceedings commenced by the plaintiff.
First defendants fined for contravening reg 5(3) of the Regulations.
Plaintiff's solicitors received a copy of the MOM investigation report.
First defendants filed their defence.
Fourth defendants filed their defence.
Written testimony of Sik Hing filed.
Affidavits of evidence-in-chief exchanged.
Trial commenced.
Trial concluded.
Judgment released.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Statutory Duty
    • Outcome: The court found the first, third, and fourth defendants breached their statutory duty.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to make and keep safe place of work
      • Absence of overhead protection
      • Inadequate safety netting
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the first, third, and fourth defendants were negligent.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unsafe work practices
      • Failure to provide safe system of work
      • Failure to warn of concealed danger
  3. Occupier's Liability
    • Outcome: The court found the first, third, and fourth defendants liable as occupiers of the site.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty to use reasonable care
      • Concealed danger
      • Inadequate warning
  4. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff was aware of the danger of falling metal formwork and therefore no contributory negligence.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the first defendants' conviction of an offence under the Factories Act and the Regulations was admissible in evidence.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Occupier's Liability
  • Breach of Statutory Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa EngUnknownYes[1995] 2 SLR 716SingaporeCited for the test of who is an occupier in law based on the degree of control exercised over a site or building.
Wheat v E Lacon & CoHouse of LordsYes[1966] AC 552England and WalesCited for the definition of an 'occupier' as someone with a sufficient degree of control over premises.
Indermaur v DamesCourt of Common PleasYes[1866] LR 1 CP 274England and WalesCited for the duty of an occupier to use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger.
Mohd bin Sapri v Soil-BuildCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 505SingaporeCited regarding the duty of an occupier and the circumstances where an occupier should supervise a contractor's activities.
Ferguson v WelshUnknownYes[1987] 3 All ER 777England and WalesCited regarding the circumstances where an occupier should supervise a contractor's activities.
Mohd Sainudin bin Ahmad v Consolidated HotelsUnknownYes[1987] SLR 556SingaporeCited regarding the duty of an occupier to use reasonable care to prevent unusual dangers.
Awang bin Dollah v Shun Shing Construction & Engineering CoUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR 677SingaporeCited for the duty of an occupier to use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger and the duty of care a main contractor owes to a workman.
Yewens v NoakesQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1880] 6 QBD 530England and WalesCited for the definition of an employee as a servant.
Queensland Stations v Federal Commissioner of TaxationHigh Court of AustraliaYes[1945] 70 CLR 539AustraliaCited for the definition of a servant and an independent contractor.
Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v Macdonald & EvansUnknownYes[1952] 1 TLR 101England and WalesCited for the 'organisation' or 'enterprise control' test to distinguish between a contract of service and a contract for services.
China Insurance Co v Woh HupUnknownYes[1975-1977] SLR 583SingaporeCited for the definition of an 'occupier' as he who has the immediate supervision and control and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons.
Dobb & Co v HeclaUnknownYes[1972-1974] SLR 522SingaporeCited for the duty of care owed by a person who creates a danger on premises.
AC Billings & Sons v RidenHouse of LordsYes[1958] AC 240England and WalesCited regarding the duty of contractors to take reasonable care to ensure people are not exposed to danger and the consideration of human nature in determining contributory negligence.
The HerangerHouse of LordsYes[1939] AC 94England and WalesCited for the principle that the burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the defendant(s).
Baker v E Longhurst & SonsUnknownYes[1933] 2 KB 461England and WalesCited for the principle that contributory negligence may be inferred from the plaintiff's own evidence.
Gibby v East Grinstead Gas and Water CoUnknownYes[1944] 1 All ER 358England and WalesCited for the principle that contributory negligence may be inferred on a balance of probabilities from the facts.
Dingle v Associated NewspapersQueen's BenchYes[1961] 2 QB 162England and WalesCited for the principle of joint and several liability where injury is indivisible.
Oli Mohamed v MurphyUnknownYes[1969-1971] SLR 270SingaporeCited for the principle of joint and several liability where damage is indivisible.
Chuang Uming v SetronCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR 166SingaporeCited for the principle of joint or separate liability depending on whether damage can be identified and isolated.
Lim Chin Yok Co v Malayan Insurance Co IncUnknownYes[1975] 1 MLJ 101MalaysiaCited for the principle that a statutory duty is absolute and liability is automatic if the statute has not been complied with.
Bullock v London General Omnibus CoKing's Bench DivisionYes[1907] 1 KB 264England and WalesCited regarding the Bullock order for costs.
Sanderson v Blyth Theatre CoKing's Bench DivisionYes[1903] 2 KB 533England and WalesCited regarding the Sanderson order for costs.
Besterman v British Motor Cab CoKing's Bench DivisionYes[1914] 3 KB 181England and WalesCited regarding the reasonableness of joining multiple defendants in an action.
Virco Metal Industries v Carltech Trading and IndustriesUnknownYes[2000] 2 SLR 201SingaporeCited regarding the refusal to make a Bullock or Sanderson order for costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Ed)Singapore
s 33(3) Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Ed)Singapore
s 88(1) Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Ed)Singapore
s 88(2) Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Ed)Singapore
s 88(3) Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Ed)Singapore
s 89(2) Factories Act (Cap 104)Singapore
s 89(3) Factories ActSingapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed)Singapore
s 45A(1) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Metal Formwork
  • Overhead Protection
  • Safety Netting
  • Construction Site
  • Occupier's Liability
  • Breach of Statutory Duty
  • Negligence
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Main Contractor
  • Sub-contractor
  • Safe System of Work
  • Concealed Danger
  • Invitees
  • Joint and Several Liability

15.2 Keywords

  • Construction site accident
  • Negligence
  • Occupier's liability
  • Breach of statutory duty
  • Falling object
  • Personal injury
  • Construction law
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Construction Law95
Breach of Statutory Duty85
Personal Injury80
Negligence75
Occupiers' Liability70
Premises Liability70
Evidence70
Workers Compensation65
Civil Procedure60
Insurance60
Costs55
Employment Law50

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Negligence
  • Occupier's Liability
  • Statutory Duty