See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam: Negligence & Occupiers' Liability in Shipyard Accident
In See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by See Toh Siew Kee against Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd, Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd, and Asian Lift Pte Ltd for injuries sustained at a shipyard. See Toh, a service engineer, trespassed onto the premises and was injured by a mooring wire during lifting operations. Justice Woo Bih Li dismissed See Toh's claim, finding that See Toh was a knowing trespasser and the defendants did not owe him a duty of care. The court also addressed issues of occupiers' liability and negligence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiff See Toh claimed damages for injuries at a shipyard. The court dismissed the claim, finding See Toh was a knowing trespasser and defendants owed no duty of care.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| See Toh Siew Kee | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| Asian Lift Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- See Toh, a service engineer, was contracted to service a radar on a tugboat.
- The incident occurred at 9/11 Tuas Basin Close, leased by Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd.
- Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd was using part of the premises to fabricate living quarters for Keppel FELS Ltd.
- Asian Lift Pte Ltd was engaged to transport the living quarters using a crane barge.
- See Toh entered the premises through a second gate of an adjacent property, Catermas Engineering Pte Ltd.
- See Toh was injured by a mooring wire from the Asian Hercules crane barge.
- The court found that See Toh knowingly trespassed onto the premises.
5. Formal Citations
- See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others, Suit No 474 of 2010, [2012] SGHC 87
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Cooperation Agreement signed between Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Private) Limited and Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd | |
| See Toh Siew Kee injured at 9/11 Tuas Basin Close | |
| See Toh Siew Kee made a police report | |
| National University Hospital prepared a medical report | |
| Tan Tock Seng Hospital issued an in-patient discharge summary report | |
| Singapore Civil Defence Force issued an ambulance report | |
| Asian Lift Pte Ltd filed initial defence | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Occupiers' Liability
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff was a knowing trespasser and the defendants, as occupiers, did not owe him a duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty of care to trespassers
- Definition of 'occupier'
- Extent of control over premises
- Related Cases:
- [1966] AC 552
- [1997] 2 SLR(R) 746
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 995
- [2000] 1 SLR(R) 839
- [1996] SGHC 296
- [1972] 1 AC 877
- [1990] 2 SLR(R) 760
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that even if a duty of care existed, the defendants did not breach it. The court also found the plaintiff contributorily negligent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation
- Contributory negligence
- Related Cases:
- [1932] AC 562
- Time Limitation under Maritime Conventions Act
- Outcome: The court found that the barge was a 'ship' under the Act, but the plaintiff was not injured on board the ship, so the time bar defence failed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Definition of 'ship'
- Location of injury (on board a ship)
- Related Cases:
- [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 163
- [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 198
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Occupiers' Liability
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steedman v Scofield | UK Court | Yes | [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 163 | United Kingdom | Cited to define the phrase 'used in navigation' in the context of determining whether a vessel is a 'ship' under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. |
| The Von Rocks | Irish Supreme Court | Yes | [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 198 | Ireland | Cited for the view that a 'dumb' barge, without an engine, can be classified as a 'ship'. |
| Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1966] AC 552 | United Kingdom | Cited for the test of who is considered an occupier of certain premises, focusing on the degree of control over the premises. |
| Awang bin Dollah v Shun Shing Construction & Engineering Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 746 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the test of sufficient degree of control over premises laid down in Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd. |
| Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd (Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Tasman Mariner", third party) | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 995 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party could have sufficient degree of control to make it an occupier of premises when it has the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons into the premises. |
| Amus bin Pangkong v Jurong Shipyard Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 839 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of immediate supervision and control does not necessarily lead to the cessation of duty as an occupier in law. |
| Awang bin Dollah v Shun Shing Construction & Engineering Co Ltd and Others (Cosmic Insurance Corporation Ltd, Third Party) | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 296 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of immediate supervision and control does not necessarily lead to the cessation of duty as an occupier in law. |
| Industrial Commercial Bank Ltd v Tan Swa Eng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 385 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the law on occupiers' liability in Singapore is derived from English common law. |
| British Railways Board v Herrington | House of Lords | No | [1972] 1 AC 877 | United Kingdom | Cited as the locus classicus for the duty of care owed by an occupier to a trespasser, but the court ultimately prefers the Clerk & Lindsell approach. |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | House of Lords | Yes | [1932] AC 562 | United Kingdom | Cited for the 'neighbour' principle in the tort of negligence. |
| Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna | High Court of Australia | No | (1987) 162 CLR 479 | Australia | Cited in relation to the discussion of whether occupiers' liability is subsumed under the tort of negligence. |
| Lim Seow Wah and another v Housing & Development Board and another | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 760 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the Clerk & Lindsell approach in occupiers' liability cases. |
| Lembaga Letrik Negara, Malaysia v Ramakrishnan | Federal Court | No | [1982] 2 MLJ 128 | Malaysia | Cited as a case where the Federal Court adopted the approach in Herrington, but the present court prefers the Clerk & Lindsell approach. |
| Davis v St Mary’s Demolition and Excavation Co Ltd | Queen's Bench Division | No | [1954] 1 WLR 592 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that a non-occupier should not be in a different position from an occupier, but the court notes that the non-occupier was still found to owe a duty of care. |
| Buckland v Guildford Gas, Light & Coke Co | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1949] 1 KB 410 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that a non-occupier is not in the same position as an occupier and owes the general duty of care. |
| Creed v John McGeoch & Sons Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1955] 1 WLR 1005 | United Kingdom | Cited as following the decisions in Buckland and Davis. |
| Southern Portland Cement Ltd v Cooper | Privy Council | Yes | [1974] AC 633 | Australia | Cited for the proposition that there is little difference between the duty to take reasonable care and the duty of common humanity. |
| M’alister (Or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson | House of Lords | Yes | [1932] AC 562 | United Kingdom | Cited for the general duty of care. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (Cap. IA3, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Occupiers' liability
- Trespasser
- Duty of care
- Mooring wire
- Shipyard
- Negligence
- Seafront Access Point
- Operations Site
- Fouled wire
15.2 Keywords
- Occupiers' liability
- Negligence
- Shipyard accident
- Trespasser
- Mooring wire
- Personal injury
- Singapore
- Maritime Conventions Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Occupiers' Liability | 90 |
| Negligence | 80 |
| Personal Injury | 75 |
| Torts | 60 |
| Trespass | 50 |
| Shipping Law | 40 |
| Property Law | 30 |
| Construction Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Tort
- Shipping
- Personal Injury
- Occupiers Liability
- Negligence