Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort: Negligence, Defective Equipment & Personal Injury

In Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed claims of negligence following severe injuries sustained by Lim Yee Ming at Ubin Lagoon Resort's adventure center. Lim was injured due to defective equipment and inadequate training provided by Adventure Training Systems Pty Ltd. The court found the Suppliers liable for negligence and breach of implied contractual terms, leading to judgment in favor of Lim, with damages to be assessed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff’s claim is allowed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding negligence and defective equipment after Lim Yee Ming sustained severe injuries at Ubin Lagoon Resort. Judgment for Plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

22 June 2003

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lim Yee Ming	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Allowed	Won	Quek Mong Hua of Lee & Lee Daphne Lim of Lee & Lee Matthew Saw of Lee & Lee
Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claim against Defendant	Lost	Brian Tan of Madhavan Partnership Peter Madhavan of Madhavan Partnership K Jayabalan of Madhavan Partnership
Adventure Training Systems (Asia-Pacific) Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claim against Defendant	Lost	Raymond Lam Ping Fong of Raymond Lam & Lim Partnership
Adventure Training Systems Pty Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claim against Defendant	Lost	Conrad Campos of Conrad Campos Partnership Linda Ho of Conrad Campos Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Kew Chai	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Quek Mong Hua	Lee & Lee
Daphne Lim	Lee & Lee
Matthew Saw	Lee & Lee
Brian Tan	Madhavan Partnership
Peter Madhavan	Madhavan Partnership
K Jayabalan	Madhavan Partnership
Raymond Lam Ping Fong	Raymond Lam & Lim Partnership
Conrad Campos	Conrad Campos Partnership
Linda Ho	Conrad Campos Partnership

4. Facts

Ivy was injured while participating in the 'Team Pyramid Challenge' at Ubin Adventure Centre.
Ivy fell approximately 10 meters due to a failure of the lowering equipment.
The lowering equipment included a stop descender and a prussic loop.
The stop descender was found to be incompatible with the 9mm rope used, especially when wet.
The instructors were inadequately trained on the use of the prussic loop.
The Suppliers, Adventure Training Systems Pty Ltd, supplied the defective equipment and training.
Ben, the instructor, was found not to be at fault for the incident.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 1368/2001, [2003] SGHC 134

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1999-07-28	Agreement signed between the Managers and the Contractors for the design, supply and installation of the structures of the Adventure Training Facility.
1999-08-01	Contractors commenced work on the Adventure Training facility.
2000-04-11	Contractors informed the managers that the training facilities were practically completed.
2000-05-01	Training program conducted by Mr Richard Hope for the Managers’ and Operators’ staff.
2000-05-12	6 Pyramid Rescue Kits were delivered to the Managers.
2000-12-15	Lim Yee Ming was seriously injured at the Ubin Adventure Centre.
2000-12-17	Russell Moy and Gabriel Soh tested and investigated the rescue kit.
2001-01-09	Richard Delaney investigated the stop descender and the prussic loop.
2001-04-09	Trial of the first suit began.
2001-10-20	First suit No. 880/2000/A was filed by Adventure Training Systems (Asia-Pacific) Pte Ltd.
2002-09-11	Third tranche of the trial of the first suit resumed.
2003-01-13	Trial of the second suit began.
2003-02-25	Written submissions were all filed.
2003-06-23	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the Suppliers liable for negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Defective equipment
  - Inadequate training
Breach of Implied Terms of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Contractors had breached implied terms of the agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Fitness for purpose
  - Adequate training and instructions

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for personal injury
Special damages
Loss of earnings
Future medical expenses
Future nursing care

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Personal Injury Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Recreation
Tourism

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chan Heng Wah v Peh Thiam Choh	High Court	Yes	[1986] 2 MLJ 175	Malaysia	Cited as a helpful approach when assessing the probable earning prospects of an average professional.
Lai Chi Kay v Lee Kuo Shin	High Court	Yes	[1981] 2 MLJ 167	Hong Kong	Reference was referred as a matter of interest (and not as a matter of reliance by counsel for the Operators) to the so-called ‘median approach’ of the courts.
Teo Seng Kiat v Goh Hwa Teck	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR 333	Singapore	Ivy’s counsel submits it should be higher than 18, relying on Teo Seng Kiat v Goh Hwa Teck [2003] 1 SLR 333.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Stop descender
Prussic loop
Team Pyramid Challenge
Ubin Adventure Centre
Rescue kit
Belaying rope
Karabiner
Instructors
Training program
9mm rope

15.2 Keywords

Negligence
Personal Injury
Defective Equipment
Ubin Lagoon Resort
Adventure Training
Lim Yee Ming
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Personal Injury	95
Negligence	90
Defective equipment	80
Scope of Liability in Negligence	75
Breach of Contract	70
Implied Terms of Contract	65
Contract Law	60
Torts	50

16. Subjects

Negligence
Personal Injury
Contract Law
Recreational Activities
Equipment Safety