Tech Pacific v Pritam Kaur & Isetan: Breach of Contract & Negligence in Security Services

Tech Pacific (S) Pte Ltd sued Pritam Kaur d/o Joginder Singh, formerly trading as Eshar Security Services, and Isetan Singapore Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract and negligence following a burglary at Tech Pacific's leased premises in Seiclene House, owned by Isetan. Tech Pacific claimed Isetan failed to provide adequate security under the lease agreement and that Eshar's security guard was negligent. The court, presided over by Justice Choo Han Teck, dismissed Tech Pacific's claims, finding no contractual obligation for Isetan to provide security services beyond what was already provided and insufficient evidence of negligence on the part of either defendant. The court also rejected the application of res ipsa loquitur.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Tech Pacific sued Pritam Kaur and Isetan for a burglary loss. The court dismissed the claims, finding no breach of contract or negligence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tech Pacific (S) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Pritam Kaur d/o Joginder Singh formerly trading as Eshar Security ServicesDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedWon
Isetan Singapore LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N.B. RaoB. Rao and K.S. Rajah
Rajinder Singh s/o Avtar SinghB. Rao and K.S. Rajah
Toh Kok SengLee and Lee
Lee Hui YunLee and Lee

4. Facts

  1. Tech Pacific leased premises in Seiclene House from Isetan.
  2. Eshar Security Services was contracted by Isetan to provide security at Seiclene House.
  3. Tech Pacific's premises were burglarized, resulting in a loss of $253,820.36.
  4. The thieves broke in by sawing off the aluminium roller shutters and breaking the door lock.
  5. Only one security guard was on duty at Seiclene House on the night of the burglary.
  6. The Chubb Alarm System at Tech Pacific's premises was either not armed or not properly armed.
  7. The stolen goods were specific and selected products, not the usual plunder of cash and jewellery.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tech Pacific (S) Pte Ltd v Pritam Kaur d/o Joginder Singh formerly trading as Eshar Security Services and Another, Suit 153/2002, [2003] SGHC 242

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Burglary occurred at Tech Pacific's premises between 8.30pm on 13 February 1996 and 7.30am on 14 February 1996.
Suit filed (Suit 153/2002).
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that clause 2(b) of the lease agreement did not include an obligation to provide security services.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the omission of the security guard did not constitute culpable negligence and that the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants' negligence led to the theft.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Res Ipsa Loquitur
    • Outcome: The court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the plaintiffs pleaded specific acts of negligence.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Technology
  • Retail
  • Security

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Doughue v StevensonHouse of LordsYes[1932] AC 562United KingdomCited as a foundational case for the tort of negligence and the duty of care.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] 2 AC 241United KingdomCited for the principle that pure omissions generally create no duty of care.
Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks CoCourt of ExchequerYes(1865) 3 H&C 596United KingdomCited as a classic example of the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security Services
  • Lease Agreement
  • Negligence
  • Duty of Care
  • Pure Omission
  • Culpable Omission
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur
  • Service Charge
  • Burglary
  • Independent Contractor

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • negligence
  • security services
  • burglary
  • lease agreement
  • omission
  • res ipsa loquitur
  • Tech Pacific
  • Isetan
  • Eshar Security Services

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Landlord and Tenant Law90
Negligence80
Contract Law75
Security Services65
Property Law60

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Negligence Claim
  • Commercial Lease
  • Security Services Contract