Ho See Jui v Liquid Advertising: Negligence, Nuisance & Rylands v Fletcher in Water Damage Claim

Ho See Jui, trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery, sued Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging negligence and nuisance after a water hose rupture in Liquid Advertising's office, which was located above the art gallery, caused water damage to paintings. Lai Siu Chiu J. found both Liquid Advertising and Goh Sin Huat liable for private nuisance and ruled in favor of Ho See Jui, apportioning liability between the defendants. The court also found Liquid Advertising liable for negligence and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Art gallery owner Ho See Jui sues Liquid Advertising and Goh Sin Huat for water damage to paintings. The court found both defendants liable for nuisance.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery)PlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Liquid Advertising Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost
Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kelvin Poon Kin MunRajah & Tann LLP
Melissa KueRajah & Tann LLP
Audrey Chiang Ju HuaRodyk & Davidson LLP
Lim Yew Kuan CalvinRodyk & Davidson LLP
A Shahiran Anis Bin Mohamed IbrahimAsia Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff operated an art gallery on the ground floor of a shophouse.
  2. First defendant was the tenant of the unit directly above the art gallery.
  3. Second defendant installed and maintained a water dispensing unit (WDU) in the first defendant's office.
  4. A water inlet hose connected to the WDU ruptured, causing water to leak into the art gallery.
  5. The water damaged the plaintiff's paintings, which were painted on rice paper.
  6. The water inlet hose was made of ester-based polyurethane, which is susceptible to degradation when exposed to water.
  7. The WDU was installed in an area with timber flooring that allowed water to seep through.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 959 of 2009/P, [2011] SGHC 108

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Second defendant sold the first defendant the “Frigeria” brand WDU
First defendant entered into service and maintenance contracts with the second defendant
First defendant entered into service and maintenance contracts with the second defendant
Second defendant reinstalled the WDU at the Second Floor Unit
First defendant entered into service and maintenance contracts with the second defendant
Water inlet hose ruptured
Suit filed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the first defendant liable for negligence.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Nuisance
    • Outcome: The court found both the first and second defendants liable for private nuisance.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
    • Outcome: The court found the first defendant liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the second defendant breached the Reinstallation Agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Exemption Clause
    • Outcome: The court found that the Quotation Warning did not exempt the second defendant from liability.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. General Damages
  2. Special Damages
  3. Indemnity
  4. Contribution

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Nuisance
  • Breach of Contract
  • Claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Retail
  • Art

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas FletcherN/AYes(1868) LR 3 HL 330N/ACited for the rule in Rylands v Fletcher regarding non-natural use of land and escape of dangerous things.
OTF Aquarium Farm (formerly known as Ong’s Tropical Fish Aquarium & Fresh Flowers) (a firm) v Lian Shing Construction Co Pte Ltd (Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, Third Party)High CourtYes[2007] SGHC 122SingaporeCited for the principle that an actionable private nuisance involves causing or permitting a state of affairs that interferes with the ownership or occupation of land and that the damage caused by the nuisance must be reasonably foreseeable.
Hygeian Medical Supplies Pte Ltd v Tri-Star Rotary Screen Engraving Works Pte Ltd (Seng Wing Engineering Works Pte Ltd, third party)N/AYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 411SingaporeCited for the principle that a single interference may be actionable as a private nuisance if the state of affairs at the property from which the interference emanated was potentially hazardous.
Sutherland Shire Council v HeymanN/AYes(1985) 60 ALR 1N/ACited for Deane J's analysis of the concept of proximity in determining whether a duty of care exists.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for restating the test that Singapore courts should apply in determining whether a duty of care exists.
PC Connect Pte Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of CapitaMall Trust) and another (Bachmann Japanese Restaurant Pte Ltd, third party)High CourtYes[2010] SGHC 154SingaporeCited as recent authority for finding a duty of care between neighbours in circumstances involving water seepage.
Fisher v Harrods LtdN/AYes[1966] 1 QB 500N/ACited by the plaintiff in support of its argument that the second defendant owed it a duty of care. The court did not find the case analogous to the present case.
Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte LtdN/AYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 116SingaporeCited for the application of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in Singapore.
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough CouncilN/AYes[2004] 2 AC 1N/ACited by the first defendant to argue that the bringing of the WDU into its premises was not a non-natural use of the Second Floor Unit. The court disagreed.
Balfour v Barty-King and anotherN/AYes[1956] 1 WLR 779N/ACited for the principle that it is necessary to consider the circumstances under which the dangerous thing was brought onto the defendant’s land when applying the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Chuang Uming (Pte) Ltd v Setron Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 771SingaporeCited for the principle that a separate judgment should only be issued if the damage suffered by the plaintiff is capable of being isolated and attributed to the particular acts of each defendant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supply of Goods Act (Cap 394, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Water Dispensing Unit
  • Water Inlet Hose
  • Hydrolytic Degradation
  • Helical Line Feature
  • Non-Natural Use
  • Private Nuisance
  • Duty of Care
  • Reinstallation Agreement
  • Quotation Warning
  • Independent Contractor

15.2 Keywords

  • water damage
  • negligence
  • nuisance
  • Rylands v Fletcher
  • art gallery
  • water hose
  • ester-based polyurethane
  • hydrolysis
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence85
Private nuisance80
Torts75
Property Damage70
Contract Law65
Breach of Contract60
Contracts60
Rylands v Fletcher Rule60
Damages50
Remedies40
Mistake30
Construction Law30
Liquidated Damages20
Estoppel20

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Negligence
  • Nuisance
  • Contract
  • Water Damage
  • Property Damage