Holland Leedon v C & P Transport: Warehouseman Negligence & Liability for Damaged Metal Coils
In Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v C & P Transport Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Holland Leedon (Plaintiff) against C & P Transport (Defendant) for damages resulting from 11 missing metal coils and damage to other coils stored in the Defendant's warehouse. The Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the Defendant as a warehouseman. The court found the Defendant liable for the missing coils, water damage, and handling/packaging damage to varying degrees, but also found the Plaintiff contributorily negligent in relation to the handling/packaging damage. The court awarded damages to the Plaintiff.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Holland Leedon sued C & P Transport for negligence as a warehouseman, claiming damages for missing and damaged metal coils. The court found C & P liable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Anthony Lee, Gan Kam Yuin, Cheng Geok Lin Angelyn, Eu Li Lian |
| C & P Transport Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | Jimmy Yim, Darrell Low Kim Boon, Ong Yuan Kun |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lionel Yee | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anthony Lee | Bih Li & Lee |
| Gan Kam Yuin | Bih Li & Lee |
| Cheng Geok Lin Angelyn | Bih Li & Lee |
| Eu Li Lian | Bih Li & Lee |
| Jimmy Yim | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Darrell Low Kim Boon | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Ong Yuan Kun | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff stored metal coils at Defendant's warehouse.
- 11 coils went missing from the Defendant's warehouse.
- Some coils were damaged by water due to flooding in the warehouse.
- Some coils were damaged due to improper handling and stacking.
- The warehousing contract was governed by a quotation with standard terms.
- The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in instructing the Defendant that it was sufficient to use a normal forklift to move the coils.
- The quotation was never signed by the Plaintiff.
5. Formal Citations
- Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v C & P Transport Pte Ltd, Suit No 239 of 2009, [2013] SGHC 281
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff sold its business to Metalform Asia Pte Ltd | |
| Plaintiff discovered Metalform Asia was improperly appropriating its stocks | |
| Plaintiff decided to move its coils and steel sheets to a different warehouse | |
| Plaintiff decided on storage of the stocks with the Defendant | |
| Defendant issued quotation for warehousing arrangement | |
| Metal coils and steel sheets were transported by the Defendant from the Transware warehouse to the Defendant’s warehouse | |
| 11 mother coils were discovered to be missing from the Plaintiff’s stocks | |
| Flooding occurred at the warehouse | |
| Flooding occurred at the warehouse | |
| Miller International Loss Adjustors (S) Pte Ltd surveyed the goods at the Defendant’s warehouse | |
| Miller produced a survey report | |
| Writ of summons filed by the Plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff removed its metal coils and cut sheets from the Defendant’s warehouse to the Sagawa warehouse | |
| Joint survey of the coils classified as “unsound” in the 1st Miller Report was conducted | |
| Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant’s solicitors inviting them to also conduct a joint survey of the coils which had been classified earlier as “sound” in the 1st Miller Report | |
| Defendant’s solicitors wrote to state its position that any deterioration of the coils was due to storage in the Sagawa warehouse | |
| Selby inspected the “sound” coils by a visual inspection of their external condition | |
| Insight produced a report | |
| Selby produced a second report | |
| Representatives of both parties participated in a joint inspection at the Sagawa warehouse | |
| Dr Qiu produced expert reports | |
| Liam produced expert reports | |
| Statement of claim was amended by the Plaintiff | |
| Dr Roger Hooper produced a report on the quantification of the damage suffered by the Plaintiff | |
| Leow Jian Quan Kenneth produced a report setting out his opinion on the same issue | |
| Ng Teck Hock Norman produced a further expert report | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the Defendant negligent in its duty as a warehouseman, leading to damage and loss of the Plaintiff's goods.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to exercise reasonable care as a warehouseman
- Improper storage of goods
- Failure to prevent water damage
- Improper handling of goods
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant breached its contractual obligations to provide proper storage conditions for the Plaintiff's goods.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide proper storage conditions
- Failure to deliver goods in good condition
- Contributory Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the Plaintiff contributorily negligent in instructing the Defendant that it was sufficient to use a normal forklift to move the coils, and reduced the damages payable for handling/packaging damage by 25%.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Plaintiff's contribution to the loss
- Instructions given by the Plaintiff
- Incorporation of Exclusion and Limitation Clauses
- Outcome: The court found that the exclusion and limitation clauses were not properly incorporated into the contract between the parties.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Fair notice of onerous terms
- Unsigned contract
- Standard terms and conditions
- Reasonableness of Exclusion and Limitation Clauses
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant did not satisfy its burden of proving that the exclusion and limitation clauses were “reasonable” under s 3 of the UCTA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unfair Contract Terms Act
- Resources to meet liability
- Insurance coverage
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Logistics
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chua Keng Mong v Hong Realty Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 317 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a bailee's duty includes ensuring that the place where goods are stored is fit and proper. |
| Track-Truss Technologies Pte Ltd v UTi Worldwide (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Lim Guan Teh Transport Contractors (sued as a firm), Third Party) | District Court | No | [2004] SGDC 42 | Singapore | Cited to contrast proper storage conditions for goods resistant to water contact with those required for goods needing protection from rain. |
| 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 Court | No | [2007] SGHC 122 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a witness giving evidence on rainfall charts who is not an expert cannot assist in analysing the data to allow the court to reach any conclusion that the rainfall was such that the flooding occasioned was clearly beyond the control of the Defendant. |
| Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | No | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence of the loss suffered, and the court should allow recovery if the plaintiff has attempted its level best to prove its loss and the evidence is cogent. |
| Rapiscan Asia Pte Ltd v Global Container Freight Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 701 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that exclusion clauses are construed contra proferentem. |
| Marina Centre Holdings Pte Ltd v Pars Carpet Gallery Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 897 | Singapore | Cited to support the guidelines laid down by Lord Morton of Henryton in Canada Steamship Lines Ld v The King for approaching the consideration of exclusion clauses. |
| Canada Steamship Lines Ld v The King | Privy Council | Yes | [1952] AC 192 | Canada | Cited to support the guidelines for approaching the consideration of exclusion clauses. |
| Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd | High Court | No | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 712 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that where a contract is signed by the parties, and the contract contains an explicit incorporating clause, an exclusion clause is validly incorporated notwithstanding the fact that the party resisting its effect did not have the chance to read it. |
| Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1989] 1 QB 433 | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that where a condition is particularly onerous or unusual, the party seeking to enforce it must show that the condition was “fairly brought to the notice of the other party” before it is validly incorporated. |
| Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1971] 2 QB 163 | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that where a condition is particularly onerous or unusual, the party seeking to enforce it must show that the condition was “fairly brought to the notice of the other party” before it is validly incorporated. |
| Deans Property Pte Ltd v Land Estates Apartments Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | No | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 804 | Singapore | Cited as not applicable in the present case. |
| Superintendent of Lands and Surveys (4th Div) & Anor v Hamit bin Matusin & Ors | High Court | No | [1994] 3 MLJ 185 | Malaysia | Cited to support the principle that a party should object to the introduction of any evidence it thought was a departure from the other party’s pleadings, rather than leaving this to be raised in their closing submissions. |
| R & B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 1 WLR 321 | England and Wales | Cited to support the test of whether a transaction is integral to a company’s business in determining whether a party deals as a consumer. |
| Hadley Design Associates Ltd v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster | High Court | Yes | [2003] EWHC 1617 (TCC) | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that “written standard terms of business” in s 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c 50) (UK) envisaged that there be a set of terms in the written form existing prior to the making of the agreement which was intended to be adopted more or less automatically by all transactions of a particular type without any significant opportunity for negotiations. |
| Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland and Another | Court of Appeal | No | [1987] 1 WLR 659n | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that the fact that a particular clause is found to be reasonable in one case does not necessarily mean that it is also reasonable in another – it depends on the facts of each case. |
| Kenwell & Co Pte Ltd v Southern Ocean Shipbuilding Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 583 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the more unreasonable a contractual provision appears to be, the greater is the burden on the party who seeks to rely on it. |
| Kay Lim Construction & Trading Pte Ltd v Soon Douglas (Pte) Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | No | [2013] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the fact that the party against whom the clause is being used has repeatedly entered into agreements on similar terms without complaint does not lead ipso facto to the conclusion that the terms are reasonable. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Metal coils
- Warehouse
- Warehousing contract
- Negligence
- Water damage
- Handling damage
- Exclusion clause
- Limitation of liability
- Contributory negligence
- Standard terms and conditions
- Unfair Contract Terms Act
15.2 Keywords
- warehouse
- negligence
- metal coils
- damage
- contract
- Singapore
- liability
- storage
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Negligence
- Bailment
- Warehousing
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Bailment
- Warehousing Law
- Civil Procedure