Afro-Asia Shipping v Da Zhong: Negligence, Duty of Support & Building Damage

In 2003, the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd v Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd and Others, concerning damage to the Afro-Asia Building allegedly caused by construction activities on adjacent land owned by Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd. Afro-Asia Shipping claimed negligence, breach of duty of support, and nuisance against Da Zhong, Ong Hoo Kim Construction (Pte) Ltd, Falcon Piling Pte Ltd, Trevi Contractors (Singapore) Pte Ltd, and Chin Kok Kwong Design & Build Pte Ltd. The court found Da Zhong, Ong Hoo Kim Construction, and Falcon Piling liable for negligence and breach of duty of support, and Chin Kok Kwong Design & Build liable for damage to the roof. The claim against Trevi Contractors was dismissed. The court ordered damages to be assessed for the diminution in value of the building, loss of rental income, and special damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part against the first, second, third, and fifth defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Afro-Asia Shipping sues Da Zhong for negligence and breach of duty of support, alleging construction damage to their building. Judgment for Plaintiff in part.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Da Zhong Investment Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant in partLost
Falcon Piling Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant in partLost
Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Ong Hoo Kim Construction (Pte) LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant in partLost
Trevi Contractors (Singapore) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Chin Kok Kwong Design & Build Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant in partLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Peter MadhavanMadhavan Partnership
Basil OngMadhavan Partnership
Zaheer MerchantMadhavan Partnership
Cheva YuMadhavan Partnership
Manjit SinghManjit and Partners
Sree Govind MenonManjit and Partners
Edwin LeeCTLC Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Afro-Asia Shipping Company owned the Afro-Asia Building at 63 Robinson Road.
  2. Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd owned the premises at 57 Robinson Road and decided to redevelop the land.
  3. Construction activities at 57 Robinson Road caused damage to the AA Building, including cracks and soil settlement.
  4. OHK was the demolition contractor, Falcon was the piling contractor, Trevi was the piling contractor for the 20-storey building, and CKK was the main contractor.
  5. The AA Building comprised a 7-storey building and a 4-storey annex, with a sub-station at the rear corner.
  6. A photographic survey in February 1995 documented the condition of AA Building before construction activities began.
  7. Complaints of noise, vibration, cracks, and water seepage were made by the plaintiffs during the construction activities.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd v Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 352/2001, [2003] SGHC 286

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Graham Miller conducted a photographic survey of AA Building and 55 Robinson Road.
Site handed over to OHK for demolition of existing building.
Plaintiffs complained of defects caused to AA Building by demolition works.
Meeting held at AA Building to check and record defects.
Plaintiffs complained that OHK had knocked through part of the wall of AA Building.
Plaintiffs put on record that the floor of unit #04-03 seemed to have sunk.
Falcon took over the site from OHK.
Plaintiffs advised Da Zhong that new cracks had appeared in AA Building as a result of commencement of piling works.
Piling work resumed.
Plaintiffs wrote to put on record that strong vibrations had been felt.
DE Consultants issued a stop work order to Falcon.
Falcon performed a minor excavation and discovered that there was no piled foundation under the sub-station.
WP Brown recommended grouting the footing with concrete.
Da Zhong notified the plaintiffs of the work that had been done.
Meeting took place between DE Consultants, the plaintiffs, and Meinhardt to discuss remedial measures.
Dr. Soh submitted his proposal to stop all settlement of AA Building.
Work on the remedial measures commenced.
Falcon recommenced their piling works.
Insight Adjusters & Surveyors Pte Ltd issued a survey report.
Falcon completed installation of the last pile.
Falcon demobilised from the site.
Site was officially handed over to CKK to start work on erection of the new building.
Insight Adjusters & Surveyors Pte Ltd issued a survey report.
Insight Adjusters & Surveyors Pte Ltd issued a survey report.
Plaintiffs complained that more cracks had appeared in their office.
Plaintiffs' solicitors complained that water was still leaking into the plaintiffs' office premises when it rained.
Plaintiffs' solicitors complained that remedial works had yet to commence.
Plaintiffs reported that the tenant at unit 05-08 had reported visible cracks inside their office premises.
Joint inspection held at AA Building attended by Da Zhong, DE Consultants, Falcon and the plaintiffs.
All work on the 13-storey building was officially stopped.
PowerGrid informed the plaintiffs that it would like to upgrade the electrical equipment in the sub-station.
Trevi was appointed by FCAL.
The enlarged work site was physically taken over by FCAL.
Trevi commenced their piling operations.
Plaintiffs sent Da Zhong's lawyer a list of defects found in AA Building.
Ms Nancy Chiang reported to one PC Tan of Trevi that the glass tell-tale installed on the wall of the pantry of the plaintiffs' office had cracked.
Plaintiffs' letter to Trevi documenting the fact that Trevi's representatives had visited AA Building on 28 February and taken photographs of the pantry wall.
Plaintiffs inspected the sub-station and found a clear hollow space under the floor surface where the plinth used to sit.
Court of Appeal made a consent order in Civil Appeal No. 600066 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 600067 of 2001.
Ms Chiang recorded that vibrations were experienced at 11.45 am that day.
Joint inspection took place attended by the plaintiffs, Da Zhong, DE Consultants and Dr Soh.
Another document relating to cracks and damage to the sub-station observed.
Memorandum recording a complaint received from the office of Manjit Samuel & Partners at unit 04-07 that wall cracks appeared to have widened.
Trevi completed piling works.
The enlarged site was handed over to OHK again.
OHK commenced excavation work.
Minutes of a meeting recorded that noise and vibration had been created by CKK's activities.
Letter from the Building Control Authority detailing steps that DE Consultants reported they would take to prevent objects from falling onto AA Building.
Letter sent by the plaintiffs to CKK placing on record the meeting between their respective personnel with regard to damage to the metal roof.
Letter from CKK to the plaintiffs stating that they had appointed a contractor to repair the zinc roof on Monday, 31st July 2000.
Temporary occupation permit was obtained.
Action commenced.
Plaintiffs requested that the hearing be adjourned.
Letter from the plaintiffs to CKK stating that as construction activities had been completed, it was then time for the damaged zinc roof to be made good.
The adjourned hearing resumed with the first to third defendants opening their joint defence.
Trevi filed an application to strike out the plaintiffs' claim against them.
The first to third defendants concluded their case.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that the second and third defendants were in breach of their duty to take all necessary precautions to reduce the impact of works on neighbouring properties.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the second and third defendants were negligent in their demolition and construction activities, which caused damage to the plaintiffs' building.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Duty of Support
    • Outcome: The court found that the first defendants breached their duty to ensure sufficient alternative means of support for neighbouring properties before carrying out demolition and excavation works.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 3 SLR 545
  4. Causation
    • Outcome: The court found that the second and third defendants' works on neighbouring land caused damage to the plaintiffs' building.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Res Ipsa Loquitur
    • Outcome: The court found that the ingredients of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were not made out against the fourth defendants.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Vicarious Liability
    • Outcome: The court found that the first defendants were not vicariously liable for damage caused by the fifth defendants, as the fifth defendants were no longer in the first defendants' employment when the damage was caused.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages to be assessed
  2. Special damages
  3. Injunction compelling the defendants to remove all the external supports on and against AA Building and all core samples from the building.

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Duty
  • Nuisance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR 545SingaporeLaid down the principle that a landowner in Singapore has a duty not to cause damage to his neighbour’s land by excavating or otherwise removing his land without first securing alternative means of support.
Poh Soon Kiat v Hotel Ramada of NevadaHigh CourtNo[1999] 4 SLR 391SingaporeCited regarding the principle that a judge cannot reopen a matter long after it has been decided.
Hollebone v Midhurst and Fernhurst BuildersN/AYes[1968] 1 LLR 38N/ACited regarding the measure of damages in a case where land has been damaged.
Dodd Properties v Canterbury City CouncilN/AYes[1980] 1 All ER 928N/ACited regarding the general object underlying the rules for the assessment of damages.
Rookes v BarnardN/AYes[1964] AC 1129N/ACited regarding the categories of situations in which the law allows for an award of exemplary damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 35 r 4(3) of the Rules of Court
O 92 r 4

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Control Act (Cap 29)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Demolition
  • Construction
  • Piling
  • Subsidence
  • Settlement
  • Cracks
  • Vibration
  • Duty of support
  • Negligence
  • Res ipsa loquitur
  • Vicarious liability

15.2 Keywords

  • Construction damage
  • Negligence
  • Duty of support
  • Building subsidence
  • Piling
  • Demolition
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence90
Torts90
Duty of Care80
Property Damage70
Assessment of Damages60
Personal Injury60
Construction Law50
Building and Construction40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Negligence
  • Tort Law
  • Real Property Law