OTF Aquarium Farm v Lian Shing Construction: Negligence, Nuisance, and Damages for Loss of Fish

In OTF Aquarium Farm v Lian Shing Construction Co Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the assessment of damages. OTF Aquarium Farm sued Lian Shing Construction for negligence and nuisance after drainage works led to the loss of fish. The court upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision, awarding $12,700 for the dead fish, but denying claims for economic loss and pond re-instatement. The court ordered costs of the assessment to be taxed on the Magistrate’s Court’s scale.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

OTF Aquarium Farm sued Lian Shing Construction for negligence and nuisance, seeking damages for fish loss due to drainage works. The court assessed damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Liberty Insurance Pte LtdOtherCorporation
OTF Aquarium FarmPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Lian Shing Construction Co Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationJudgment in favor of Defendant in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prabhakaran NairOng Tan & Nair
Ong Min-Tse PaulAllen & Gledhill LLP
Sanjiv Rajan KumarAllen & Gledhill LLP
Fazaliah ArsadAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. OTF Aquarium Farm claimed damages from Lian Shing Construction for negligence and nuisance.
  2. The claim arose from the flooding and contamination of fish breeding ponds.
  3. The flooding occurred between December 2002 and February 2003 due to drainage works.
  4. The flooding resulted in the loss of 30 fishes.
  5. The Assistant Registrar awarded $12,700 for the dead fishes.
  6. The Assistant Registrar denied damages for economic loss and pond re-instatement.
  7. The dead fishes were determined to be Red Tail Golden Arowanas (RTGA).

5. Formal Citations

  1. OTF Aquarium Farm v Lian Shing Construction Co Pte Ltd (Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, third party), Suit No 614 of 2005 (Registrar's Appeal No 201 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 245

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Flooding and contamination of fish breeding ponds began
Flooding and contamination of fish breeding ponds continued
Loss of fishes occurred
Lawsuit filed
Defendant made an offer to settle
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Damages Assessment
    • Outcome: The court upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision, awarding $12,700 for the dead fish, but denying claims for economic loss and pond re-instatement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Economic Loss
      • Re-instatement Costs
      • Mitigation of Loss
    • Related Cases:
      • (1880) 5 App Cas 25
      • 152 Wis. 2d 78 (1989)
      • 204 Wis. 2d 37 (1996)
      • [1912] AC 673
  2. Costs of Assessment
    • Outcome: The court ordered costs of the assessment to be taxed on the Magistrate’s Court’s scale.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Nuisance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Aquaculture

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal CoN/AYes(1880) 5 App Cas 25N/ACited for the principle of restitutio in integrum, requiring restoration to the original position.
Rosche v Wayne Feed Division, Continental Grain CoCourt of Appeals of WisconsinNo152 Wis. 2d 78 (1989)United StatesCited regarding the measure of damages for the destruction of livestock, specifically the animal’s market value determined by replacement cost.
Wayne F Schrubbe v Peninsula Veterinary Service, IncCourt of Appeals of WisconsinYes204 Wis. 2d 37 (1996)United StatesCited to explain the principle in Rosche, that market value of replacement animals is based in part upon their expected future productivity.
British Westinghouse Electric And Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London LtdN/AYes[1912] AC 673N/ACited for the principle that a plaintiff has a duty to mitigate the loss.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court
Order 59 r 27(5) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Subordinate Courts ActSingapore
Section 39(1)(b) of the Subordinate Courts ActSingapore
Section 39(4)(a) of the Subordinate Courts ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arowana
  • Cross-Back Golden Arowana (CBGA)
  • Red Tail Golden Arowana (RTGA)
  • Restitutio in integrum
  • Economic Loss
  • Mitigation of Loss
  • Re-instatement Costs

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • nuisance
  • damages
  • arowana
  • fish
  • construction
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Damages95
Negligence60
Nuisance55
Costs50
Commercial Litigation40
Breach of Contract30
Contract Law30
Estoppel20

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Negligence
  • Nuisance
  • Damages Assessment