MCST Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik: Non-Delegable Duty in Construction Defects
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 ("the MCST") appealed against Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd (“the Main Contractor”) and RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd (“the Architect”) in the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore on 4 July 2016, regarding liability for building defects in the common property of The Seaview condominium. The MCST argued that the Main Contractor and Architect had a non-delegable duty to ensure the building and design were free from negligence, even if caused by subcontractors. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no such duty existed under statute or common law.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The case examines if a management corporation can claim against a builder/architect for subcontractor negligence causing building defects. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO 3322 | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| TIONG AIK CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| RSP ARCHITECTS PLANNERS & ENGINEERS (PTE) LTD | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The MCST was the management corporation of The Seaview condominium.
- The Seaview was completed in 2008 with six 22-storey residential blocks of apartments, comprising 546 residential units.
- Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd was the builder of The Seaview.
- RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd was the architect of The Seaview.
- The MCST brought proceedings against the Main Contractor and the Architect in respect of defects in the common areas of the condominium.
- The MCST claimed the Main Contractor and Architect were subject to a non-delegable duty in tort to ensure that the building and design of the condominium was carried out without negligence on the part of any of their sub-contractors.
5. Formal Citations
- Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No 37 of 2016, [2016] SGCA 40
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| The Seaview condominium completed | |
| MCST brought proceedings against four defendants in Suit No 563 of 2011 | |
| Defendants proposed preliminary issues be tried | |
| MCST objected to a separate trial of the proposed preliminary issues | |
| Judge directed that preliminary issues should be tried | |
| Trial of the preliminary issues began | |
| Trial of the preliminary issues concluded | |
| Court hearing | |
| Grounds of decision delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Non-Delegable Duty
- Outcome: The court held that the builder and the architect did not owe a non-delegable duty in tort to ensure that the building and design of the condominium was carried out without negligence on the part of any of their sub-contractors.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Delegation of Duties
- Statutory Obligations
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 2 SLR 793
- [2014] AC 537
- [1998] 1 SLR(R) 409
- [2005] 2 SLR(R) 613
- Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents' sub-contractors were independent contractors, not employees, precluding vicarious liability.
- Category: Substantive
- Pure Economic Loss
- Outcome: The court found that there was no absolute bar to the creation of non-delegable duties in respect of pure economic loss.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 653
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 134
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for building defects
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Statutory Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCST Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd and ors | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 793 | Singapore | The present appeal arose from the Judge’s decision on the preliminary issues, which is reported as MCST Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd and ors [2016] 2 SLR 793 (“the Judgment”). |
| Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association and others | United Kingdom Supreme Court | Yes | [2014] AC 537 | United Kingdom | Cited as authority on the nature of non-delegable duties in tort. |
| Guardian ad litem of Lewis v British Columbia | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1997] 3 SCR 1145 | Canada | Cited for the principle that a common law duty of care does not usually demand compliance with a specific obligation. |
| The “Lotus M” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 409 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that liability incurred upon a breach of a non-delegable duty is not vicarious. |
| State of New South Wales v Lepore | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2003] 212 CLR 511 | Australia | Cited for the principle that non-delegable duties cannot be discharged by delegation. |
| Commonwealth of Australia v Introvigne | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1981–1982] 150 CLR 258 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a personal duty substitutes for the duty to take reasonable care a more stringent duty, a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 613 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that non-delegable duties create an exception to the rule that an employer cannot be liable for the negligence of its independent contractors. |
| Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 786 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an employer may be liable to an employee who sustains an injury in the course of employment in two distinct ways: vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care. |
| McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 906 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of non-delegable duty. |
| Kondis v State Transport Authority | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1984] 154 CLR 672 | Australia | Cited for the element in the relationship between the parties that makes it appropriate to impose on the defendant a duty to ensure that reasonable care and skill is taken for the safety of the persons to whom the duty is owed. |
| Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1992–1994] 179 CLR 520 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the relationship of proximity giving rise to the non-delegable duty of care is marked by special dependence or vulnerability on the part of that person. |
| Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2007] 230 CLR 22 | Australia | Cited for the element thought to be common across the categories of non-delegable duties is that the duty bearer has undertaken or assumed responsibility to the claimant in circumstances where the relationship involves a kind of “special dependence” or “particular vulnerability”. |
| Cassidy v Ministry of Health | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1951] 2 KB 343 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of non-delegable duties arising in the context of hospitals and health authorities. |
| X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council and other appeals | House of Lords | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 633 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of non-delegable duties arising in the context of hospitals and health authorities. |
| Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for the possibility of non-delegable duties arising in the hospital-patient context. |
| Honeywill & Stein Ltd v Larkin Bros (London’s Commercial Photographers) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1934] 1 KB 191 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of non-delegable duties arising in cases involving extra-hazardous operations. |
| RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even if the only loss arising from the negligent construction of a building was pure economic loss, such loss was nevertheless recoverable. |
| RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v MCST Plan No 1075 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 134 | Singapore | Cited for affirming Ocean Front. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 38 | Singapore | Cited for the reason why the MCST would not be able to recover substantial damages in contract against the developer. |
| Farraj and another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 2139 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the question whether an employer owes a non-delegable duty of care to his employees to provide a safe system and whether a hospital generally owes a non-delegable duty to its patients is one of policy for the courts to determine by reference to what is fair, just and reasonable. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Management Corporation
- Strata Title
- Condominium
- Building Defects
- Common Property
- Non-Delegable Duty
- Independent Contractor
- Sub-Contractor
- Building Control Act
- Architect
- Builder
- Negligence
- Pure Economic Loss
15.2 Keywords
- building defects
- non-delegable duty
- construction law
- MCST
- condominium
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Architects and Engineers Liability | 70 |
| Delegation of Duties | 65 |
| Negligence | 60 |
| Statutory obligations | 50 |
| Property Law | 30 |
| Breach of Contract | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Law
- Tort Law
- Real Property Law