Clarke v SilkAir: Limitation of Liability for Passenger Deaths under Warsaw Convention
In Clarke Beryl Claire v SilkAir (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the crash of SilkAir Flight MI 185. The personal representatives of deceased passengers sued SilkAir, arguing that the airline could not limit its liability under the Warsaw Convention due to the pilots' wilful misconduct or recklessness. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had not proven that the crash resulted from the pilots' actions or that the airline was not entitled to limit its liability.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding SilkAir Flight MI 185 crash. The court addressed carrier's liability limits under the Warsaw Convention and whether the crash was due to pilot misconduct.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarke Beryl Claire (as personal representative of the estate of Eugene Francis Clarke) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| SilkAir (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | CHIEF JUSTICE | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | JUDGE OF APPEAL | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- SilkAir Flight MI 185 crashed into the Musi River on 19 December 1997, killing all 102 people on board.
- The Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) concluded that the cause of the crash was unascertainable due to a lack of evidence.
- The USA Accredited Representative, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), suggested the accident was caused by intentional pilot action.
- The Criminal Investigation Department in Singapore found no evidence of suicidal tendencies or motives to crash the aircraft.
- The appellants sued the respondents, arguing that the airline could not limit its liability under the Warsaw Convention.
- The respondent offered to compensate the appellants S$332,000 for each deceased passenger, but the appellants rejected the offer.
5. Formal Citations
- Clarke Beryl Claire (as personal representative of the estate of Eugene Francis Clarke) and Others v SilkAir (Singapore) Pte Ltd, CA 600146/2001, [2002] SGCA 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air 1929 (Warsaw Convention) | |
| Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol 1955 (Warsaw (Hague) Convention) | |
| Manado incident occurred | |
| CVR incident occurred | |
| Kunming incident occurred | |
| SilkAir Flight MI 185 departed from Jakarta | |
| Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee issued Final Report | |
| National Transportation Safety Board disagreed with the NTSC’s conclusion | |
| Criminal Investigation Department in Singapore issued report | |
| Judge refused to admit the document as evidence | |
| Judge delivered his judgment | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Limitation of Carrier's Liability
- Outcome: The court held that the respondent could limit its liability under the Warsaw Convention and the Warsaw (Hague) Convention.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Wilful misconduct of pilots
- Recklessness of pilots
- Scope of employment
- Admissibility of Expert Opinion
- Outcome: The court considered the admissibility and weight of expert evidence, preferring the respondent's experts' views.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of expert opinion
- Reliability of expert opinion
- Drawing inferences from facts
- Costs
- Outcome: The court awarded indemnity costs to the respondent due to the appellants' failure to obtain a more favorable judgment than the offer to settle.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Indemnity basis for costs
- Offer to settle
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the appellants failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the crash was caused by the pilots' wilful misconduct or recklessness.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Standard of proof
- Drawing inferences
- Res ipsa loquitur
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Aviation Litigation
11. Industries
- Aviation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1940] AC 152 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of drawing inferences from objective facts. |
| Goldman v Thai Airways International Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983] 3 All ER 693 | England and Wales | Cited for the elements of liability under Article 25 of the Warsaw (Hague) Convention. |
| Horabin v British Overseas Airways Corporation | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1952] 2 QBD 1016 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of 'wilful misconduct' under the Warsaw Convention. |
| Johnson v American Airlines | Unknown | No | 20 Avi 18,248 | United States | Cited for refusing to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the Warsaw Convention. |
| Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board | Unknown | Yes | [1971] 2 All ER 1240 | England and Wales | Cited for the explanation of res ipsa loquitur. |
| Muhammad Jeffry v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 197 | Singapore | Cited for the criteria for the acceptance of expert opinion evidence. |
| Nugent and Killick v Michael Goss Aviation Ltd & Ors | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 Lloyds’ Rep 222 | England and Wales | Cited for the classification of knowledge in relation to Article 25 of the Warsaw (Hague) Convention. |
| Singapore Airlines Ltd & Anor v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 241 | Singapore | Cited regarding the purpose of the Hague Protocol to limit circumstances of escape from the general regime of limited entitlement. |
| Singapore Finance Ltd v Kim Kah Ngam (Spore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 381 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that the court must consider whether the facts exist and whether the expert’s inferences from those facts are tenable. |
| SS Pharmaceutical Co Ltd & Anor v Qantas Airways Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 288 | Australia | Cited for the rigorous standard required to qualify for full recovery from the air carrier under Article 25 of the Warsaw (Hague) Convention. |
| The Popi M | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] 2 All ER 712 | England and Wales | Cited regarding deciding cases on burden of proof. |
| Thomas Cook Group Ltd & Ors v Air Malta Co Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 399 | Unknown | Cited for the practical tests for determining wilful misconduct. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court O 22A r 9(3) |
| Rules of Court O 59 r 19 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Carriage by Air Act (Cap 32A) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) s 47 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Warsaw Convention
- Warsaw (Hague) Convention
- Wilful misconduct
- Scope of employment
- Limitation of liability
- Pilot action
- Human factors
- Corrected radar data
- Horizontal stabiliser
- CVR
- FDR
15.2 Keywords
- SilkAir
- Flight MI 185
- Warsaw Convention
- Liability
- Pilot misconduct
- Singapore
- Aviation accident
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Aviation Law | 80 |
| Civil Litigation | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Accident Law | 20 |
| Arbitration | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Aviation Accidents
- Limitation of Liability
- Air Law
- Civil Litigation