Ho See Jui v Liquid Advertising: Water Damage to Art Gallery & Damages Assessment

In Suit 959 of 2009, Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) sued Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another for damages resulting from water ingress into his art gallery. The High Court of Singapore, on 8 August 2012, assessed the damages owed by the defendants to the plaintiff. The court found the first and second defendants liable in tort and ordered them to pay damages in the sum of $567,040.40 to the plaintiff.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court assessed damages for water damage to Ho See Jui's art gallery, caused by Liquid Advertising's faulty water unit.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AnotherDefendantOtherDamages assessed against the DefendantLost
Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery)PlaintiffIndividualJudgment for the PlaintiffWon
Liquid Advertising Pte LtdDefendantCorporationDamages assessed against the DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chew Yi-Ling ElaineAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adam Muneer Yusoff ManiamDrew & Napier LLC
Kelvin Poon Kin MunRajah & Tann LLP
Chong Kah KhengRajah & Tann LLP
Kue Tit Yin MelissaRajah & Tann LLP
Audrey Chiang Ju HuaRodyk & Davidson LLP
Calvin Lim Yew KuanRodyk & Davidson LLP
Choo ZhengxiRodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff operated an art gallery selling Chinese ink paintings.
  2. The first defendant was the tenant of the unit above the gallery.
  3. The second defendant installed and maintained a water dispensing unit in the first defendant's office.
  4. A water hose ruptured in the first defendant's unit, causing water to seep into the plaintiff's gallery.
  5. The water damaged 314 ink paintings in the gallery.
  6. The plaintiff engaged specialists to salvage the paintings.
  7. The plaintiff restored 60 of the damaged paintings but was unable to sell them.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another, Suit 959 of 2009 (NA 26 of 2012), [2012] SGHCR 11
  2. Ho See Jui Trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another, , [2011] SGHC 108

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Water inlet hose ruptured at first defendant's unit.
Water damage discovered at plaintiff's art gallery.
Plaintiff informed first defendant of the water damage.
Ho Bee Tiam arrived at the gallery to salvage the paintings.
Separation process of the wet ink paintings completed.
Gallery remained closed while the plaintiff dealt with the aftermath of the incident.
Gallery remained closed while the plaintiff dealt with the aftermath of the incident.
Plaintiff stopped trying to market the Restored Paintings.
Ho See Jui Trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another [2011] SGHC 108 was decided.
Plaintiff's affidavit filed.
Plaintiff took out a Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages.
Assessment hearings conducted.
Assessment hearings conducted.
Assessment hearings conducted.
Defences filed.
Assessment hearings conducted.
Parties made submissions on costs.
Parties were recalled for clarification.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court assessed the damages based on the diminution of the market value of the affected paintings, considering the consumer value.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Diminution of market value
      • Mitigation of losses
      • Remoteness of damage
      • Causation
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] SGHC 108
      • (1880) 5 App. Cas 25
  2. Expert Evidence
    • Outcome: The court preferred the evidence of one expert over the other, based on the methodology and reliability of their assessment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Admissibility of expert evidence
      • Weight of expert evidence
      • Impartiality of expert witness
    • Related Cases:
      • [2003] 3 SLR(R) 139
      • [1982] 2 MLJ 320
      • [1994] 1 SLR(R) 681
      • [2004] 4 SLR(R) 162
  3. Remoteness of Damage
    • Outcome: The court found that the damage was not too remote, as it was reasonably foreseeable that unqualified personnel would be engaged for salvage and that damage could occur during the separation process.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable foreseeability
      • Intervening act
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623
      • [1969] 1 AC 350
  4. Mitigation of Losses
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had reasonably mitigated his losses by restoring and marketing a selection of the affected paintings.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable steps to mitigate
      • Duty to mitigate

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Retail
  • Art

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ho See Jui Trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 108SingaporeCited for the liability of the first and second defendants in tort for the damage caused by the water seepage.
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal CoN/AYes(1880) 5 App. Cas 25N/ACited for the general principle of damages, which is to put the injured party in the same position as if the wrong had not occurred.
Polar Arts of Asia Pte Ltd v Hotline KTV Karaoke Lounge Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 53SingaporeCited to note that Lim's expert evidence had been accepted in a previous unrelated matter.
Tan Mui Teck v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 139SingaporeCited for the principle that the methodology and demeanour of an expert are more important than their curriculum vitae.
PP v Mohamed SulaimanN/AYes[1982] 2 MLJ 320N/ACited for the principle that a person may be an expert by virtue of their experience and not qualification.
Leong Wing Kong v PPN/AYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 681N/ACited for the principle that a person may be an expert by virtue of their experience and not qualification.
Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd and others v Pang Seng MengN/AYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 162N/ACited regarding the impartiality of an expert witness.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited for the principle that the law does not demand that the plaintiff prove with complete certainty the exact amount of damage that he has suffered.
Chaplin v HicksN/AYes[1911] 2 KB 786N/ACited for the principle that the fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages.
Biggin & Co Ld v Permanite, LdEnglish High CourtYes[1951] 1 KB 422EnglandCited for the principle that where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it. Where it is not, the court must do the best it can.
Parno v SC Marine Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the definition of contributory negligence.
Koufos v C CzarnikowN/AYes[1969] 1 AC 350N/ACited for the test of reasonable foreseeability in remoteness in tort.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 332 R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ink paintings
  • Water seepage
  • Damages assessment
  • Mitigation of losses
  • Remoteness
  • Expert valuation
  • Consumer value
  • Salvage value

15.2 Keywords

  • water damage
  • art gallery
  • damages
  • negligence
  • assessment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Water Damage90
Damages90
Torts80
Property Damage70
Evidence60
Art Law40
Contract Law30
Breach of Contract30

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Damages
  • Art Valuation