Goh Sin Huat v Ho See Jui: Negligence, Private Nuisance, Water Leakage & Damage to Art
In Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed an appeal concerning liability for water damage to an art gallery. Ho See Jui, trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery, sued Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd and Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd after a water hose ruptured in Liquid Advertising's office, causing damage to paintings in Ho See Jui's gallery below. The High Court apportioned liability, but the Court of Appeal partially allowed Goh Sin Huat's appeal, modifying the indemnity order. The court apportioned liability at 70% to Goh Sin Huat and 30% to Liquid Advertising.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui: Court of Appeal addresses liability for water damage to an art gallery due to a ruptured water hose.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment in favour of Ho See Jui | Won | |
| Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Partial Liability | Partial | |
| Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd | Appellant, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- A water inlet hose connected to a water dispensing unit (WDU) ruptured at Liquid Advertising's office.
- The water leakage damaged paintings in Ho See Jui's art gallery located directly below Liquid Advertising's office.
- Goh Sin Huat supplied, installed, and maintained the WDU.
- The water inlet hose was found to be unsuitable for carrying potable water due to hydrolytic degradation.
- The WDU was installed in an area without a floor trap, contrary to warnings provided by Goh Sin Huat.
- Liquid Advertising instructed Goh Sin Huat to install the WDU at the specific location.
- Goh Sin Huat had visited the site prior to installation and had the ability to refuse installation in an unsuitable area.
5. Formal Citations
- Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) and another, Civil Appeal No 61 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 32
- Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another, , [2011] SGHC 108
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Goh Sin Huat sold Liquid Advertising a water dispensing unit. | |
| Liquid Advertising entered into the First Maintenance Contract with Goh Sin Huat. | |
| Liquid Advertising entered into the Second Maintenance Contract with Goh Sin Huat. | |
| Liquid Advertising entered into the Reinstallation Agreement with Goh Sin Huat. | |
| Goh Sin Huat re-installed the water dispensing unit at Liquid Advertising's new premises. | |
| Liquid Advertising entered into the Third Maintenance Contract with Goh Sin Huat. | |
| Goh Sin Huat conducted the last service of the water dispensing unit. | |
| Water inlet hose ruptured, causing water damage to Xuanhua Art Gallery. | |
| Liquid Advertising served a notice claiming contribution or indemnity against Goh Sin Huat. | |
| High Court gave judgment in favor of Ho See Jui. | |
| Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that Goh Sin Huat did not owe Ho See Jui a duty of care in negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation of damage
- Private Nuisance
- Outcome: The court found Goh Sin Huat liable for private nuisance.
- Category: Substantive
- Apportionment of Liability
- Outcome: The court apportioned liability between Goh Sin Huat and Liquid Advertising, modifying the High Court's original apportionment.
- Category: Procedural
- Indemnity
- Outcome: The court overturned the High Court's order for Goh Sin Huat to indemnify Liquid Advertising.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Private Nuisance
- Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Retail
- Advertising
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher | House of Lords | Yes | (1868) LR 3 HL 330 | England and Wales | Cited for the rule in Rylands v Fletcher regarding strict liability for non-natural use of land. |
| Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 108 | Singapore | Cited as the decision being appealed from. |
| Chuang Uming (Pte) Ltd v Setron Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 771 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that apportionment of liability must be just and equitable. |
| TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of damages. |
| Ramoo v Gan Soo Swee | Unknown | Yes | [1971–1973] SLR(R) 42 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of damages. |
| British Fame (Owners) v Macgregor (Owners) (The Macgregor) | House of Lords | Yes | [1943] AC 197 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of damages. |
| Peh Eng Leng v Pek Eng Leong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 939 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing findings of fact. |
| Mrs Sarah Ann Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | (1919) SC HL 35 | Scotland | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing findings of fact. |
| Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role with respect to the finding of facts made in the course of a trial. |
| Seah Ting Soon v Indonesian Tractors Co Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role with respect to the finding of facts made in the course of a trial. |
| Alagappa Subramanian v Chidambaram s/o Alagappa | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role with respect to the finding of facts made in the course of a trial. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role with respect to the finding of facts made in the course of a trial. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role with respect to the finding of facts made in the course of a trial. |
| Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered Bank | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 181 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role with respect to the finding of facts made in the course of a trial. |
| Wells v Mutchmeats Ltd and Another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] EWCA Civ 963 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of liability. |
| Woodham v M Turner T/A Turners of Great Barton and Peterborough City Council | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] EWCA Civ 375 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of liability. |
| Satnam Rehill v Rider Holdings Limited | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] EWCA Civ 628 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of liability. |
| Karen Janet Eagle (By her Litigation Friend E E Giles) v Garth Maynard Chambers | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] EWCA Civ 1107 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of liability. |
| Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1985) 59 ALR 529 | Australia | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of liability. |
| C (A Child) v Imperial Design Limited | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] Env LR 33 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of liability. |
| Thong Ah Fat v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in reviewing apportionment of liability. |
| Checkpoint Fluidic Systems International Ltd v Marine Hub Pte Ltd and Another Appeal | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 134 | Singapore | Cited regarding indemnity arising from contract or conduct. |
| Eastern Shipping Company, Limited v Quah Beng Kee | Privy Council | Yes | [1924] AC 177 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding indemnity arising from contract or conduct. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 16 r 8 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supply of Goods Act (Cap 394, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Water inlet hose
- Water dispensing unit
- Hydrolytic degradation
- Private nuisance
- Apportionment of liability
- Indemnity
- Reinstallation agreement
- Maintenance contract
- Quotation warning
- Helical line feature
15.2 Keywords
- water damage
- art gallery
- negligence
- private nuisance
- apportionment
- indemnity
- water hose
- water dispenser
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Negligence | 80 |
| Torts | 75 |
| Private nuisance | 70 |
| Rylands v Fletcher Rule | 65 |
| Property Damage | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Apportionment of Liability | 40 |
| Indemnity | 35 |
| Landlord and Tenant Law | 30 |
| Commercial Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Tort
- Negligence
- Nuisance
- Contract
- Damages