AYW v AYX: Negligence Claim for School Bullying - Duty of Care Analysis

In AYW v AYX, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the striking out of a negligence claim brought by AYW, a former student, against AYX, her secondary school. AYW alleged that the school failed to prevent bullying by her peers. The High Court, Wei J, allowed the school's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, striking out the entire claim, finding that the school did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care on the pleaded facts and that the claim was legally and factually unsustainable. The court also addressed alternative arguments regarding causation and damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in part, and Appeal Dismissed. The entire statement of claim was struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

AYW sues AYX for negligence, alleging the school failed to prevent bullying. The court struck out the claim, finding no duty of care existed on the pleaded facts.

1.7 Decision Date

6 December 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
AYW	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Manoj Prakash Nandwani of Gabriel Law Corporation Renganathan Shankar of Gabriel Law Corporation
AYX	Defendant, Respondent	Other	Appeal Allowed in part	Won	Thio Shen Yi of TSMP Law Corporation Sharleen Eio Huiting of TSMP Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
George Wei	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Manoj Prakash Nandwani	Gabriel Law Corporation
Renganathan Shankar	Gabriel Law Corporation
Thio Shen Yi	TSMP Law Corporation
Sharleen Eio Huiting	TSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

Plaintiff was a student at the School from 2010 to 2013 and a member of the school's Chinese orchestra.
Plaintiff alleges bullying by fellow CO EXCO members beginning in mid-2012 due to disputes over her dual appointment.
Plaintiff's parents intervened, expressing dissatisfaction with the selection process for CO positions.
Plaintiff withdrew from the School in July 2013 and pursued A-level education in the UK.
Plaintiff claims damages for physical injuries, pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and special damages.
The alleged bullying included negative comments, attitudes, and reactions from other CO members.
The alleged bullying also included critical or mocking comments on social media websites.

5. Formal Citations

AYW v AYX, Suit No 102 of 2015 (Registrar's Appeals No 219 and 230 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 312

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-01-01	Plaintiff enrolled in the School
2012-07-01	Plaintiff was informed she was selected to be the orchestra’s student conductor
2012-08-01	Plaintiff was removed as student conductor
2012-08-08	Plaintiff’s parents sent an email to the School’s deputy principal expressing their dissatisfaction
2012-08-01	Alleged bullying started
2013-01-01	Plaintiff had a confirmed place in a specialist music school in the United Kingdom
2013-01-01	Plaintiff left the CO
2013-03-22	A student tweeted that the plaintiff’s complaints about bullying were an attempt to “make bigger waves in the sea”
2013-05-01	Plaintiff’s parents informed the School that the plaintiff would be withdrawing from the School from July 2013
2013-07-01	Plaintiff withdrew from the School
2015-12-07	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that the school did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care on the pleaded facts, as it was not foreseeable that the alleged bullying would cause actionable damage.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scope of a school's duty of care to prevent bullying
  - Foreseeability of harm
  - Proximity of relationship
  - Public policy considerations
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 4 SLR 546
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
Causation
- Outcome: The court held that the chain of causation was broken between the alleged bullying and the plaintiff's decision to pursue her A-level education in the UK.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Factual causation
  - Remoteness of damage
  - Break in the chain of causation
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 513
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543
Damages
- Outcome: The court struck out the claim for aggravated damages, finding no factual basis to justify such an award.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Aggravated damages in negligence
  - Remoteness of damages
- Related Cases:
  - [2004] 1 SLR(R) 513

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Special Damages
Aggravated Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Education

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The “Bunga Melati 5”	High Court	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing a striking out action, specifically regarding whether an action is 'plainly or obviously unsustainable'.
Pacific Internet Ltd v Catcha.com Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 980	Singapore	Cited for the principle that novel questions of law should not be resolved at the striking out stage and should generally be litigated in full at trial.
Lim Kok Lian (executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) v Lee Patricia (executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 1184	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the uncertainty and novelty of a claim should not be a reason to strike out the action.
E (A Minor) v Dorset County Council	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 3 WLR 853	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if the court can be properly persuaded that no matter what the actual facts, the claim is bound to fail for want of a cause of action, there is no reason why the parties should be required to prolong the proceedings before that decision is reached.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100	Singapore	Cited for establishing the general approach to determining if a duty of care is owed in any given situation, considering factual foreseeability, proximity, and public policy.
N v Agrawal	Unknown	Yes	[1999] PNLR 939	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a duty of care is a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the claimant from suffering injury, loss or damage of the type in question, and not a duty to act in particular ways.
Rice v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry	Unknown	Yes	[2007] ICR 1469	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is conceptually questionable if one may ask the “bare question whether a defendant owes a claimant a duty of care, without defining the scope of the duty with reference to the injury or loss for which the claimant claims damages”.
Ngiam Kong Seng and another v Lim Chiew Hock	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 674	Singapore	Cited for the principle that even at the threshold stage of factual foreseeability, it may be appropriate to delve into the specific facts of the case.
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh and another v Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (now known as QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd) and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 735	Singapore	Cited for the principle that even at the threshold stage of factual foreseeability, it may be appropriate to delve into the specific facts of the case.
Hay or Bourhill v Young	House of Lords	Yes	[1943] AC 92	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that whilst it is accepted that a motorist owed a notional duty to those within the foreseeable area of risk caused by his driving, it was held on the particular facts that he did not owe a duty of care to avoid psychiatric harm to a particular bystander who witnessed the accident.
Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] EWCA Civ 07	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that there is no magic in the term bullying, and the question is always whether the school was in breach of its duty of care towards that pupil and whether that breach has caused the particular harm which was suffered.
Cox v State of New South Wales	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2007] NSWSC 471	Australia	Cited for the principle that a school owes a duty of care to its students even when the direct cause of the injury is the conduct of a third party.
Oyston v St Patrick’s College	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2011] NSWSC 269	Australia	Cited for the principle that bullying at school may result in harm, including psychiatric injury, and that such a risk is foreseeable.
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh and another v Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan Singh and another	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 843	Singapore	Cited for the principle that mere distress, grief, injury to feelings, or unhappiness is not actionable in the tort of negligence.
Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd	Privy Council	Yes	[1961] AC 388	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the remoteness inquiry is concerned with whether the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable.
PlanAssure PAC (formerly known as Patrick Lee PAC) v Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 513	Singapore	Cited for the principle that only “reckless” or “deliberate” conduct would warrant a finding that the claimant had acted so unreasonably as to break the chain of causation.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 543	Singapore	Cited for the principle that to break the chain of causation, the intervening conduct had to be “of such a nature as to constitute a wholly independent cause of the damage”.
Krajl and another v McGrath and another	Unknown	Yes	[1986] 1 All ER 54	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that aggravated damages are not awarded for negligence claims in the UK.
Tan Harry and another v Teo Chew Yeow Aloysius and another	High Court	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR(R) 513	Singapore	Cited for the principle that for an award of aggravated damages, there must be some measure of deliberate and intentional conduct.
Emblen v Myers	Unknown	Yes	(1860) 6 H & N 54	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that negligence may arise even where the damage complained of has arisen from some wilful or intentional act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bullying
Duty of care
Negligence
Factual foreseeability
Legal proximity
Causation
Aggravated damages
School governance
Chinese orchestra
EXCO

15.2 Keywords

Bullying
Negligence
Duty of Care
School
Singapore
Tort
Education

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Negligence	90
School Bullying	85
Education Law	70
Torts	60
Cyberbullying	50
Personal Injury	40

16. Subjects

Tort
Negligence
Education
Bullying