Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni: Vicarious Liability & Non-Delegable Duty for Demolition Damage

Ng Huat Seng and Kho Sung Chin appealed to the High Court of Singapore against Munib Mohammad Madni, Zahrah Ayub, and Esthetix Design Pte Ltd, contesting the District Court's decision regarding damages caused by demolition debris. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon JC, dismissed the appeal, finding that Esthetix was an independent contractor, the respondents had exercised due care in selecting Esthetix, and the demolition works were not ultra-hazardous, thus not giving rise to a non-delegable duty of care. The claim was for negligence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal on vicarious liability for demolition damage. Court held respondents not liable as Esthetix was an independent contractor, no breach of duty of care.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ng Huat SengAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Kho Sung ChinAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Munib Mohammad MadniRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Zahrah AyubRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Esthetix Design Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Tan Cheow HinCH Partners
Raymond WongWong Thomas & Leong
Os AgarwalWong Thomas & Leong

4. Facts

  1. Appellants and respondents owned neighboring detached properties with a boundary wall between them.
  2. Respondents hired Esthetix to demolish their existing house and construct a new one on a turnkey basis.
  3. Esthetix appointed professional consultants for architectural, civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering services.
  4. Approval from the Building and Construction Authority was obtained on 27 June 2011.
  5. Debris from the demolition works fell onto the appellants' property, causing damage to the boundary wall and other items.
  6. The cost of repairing the damage was assessed by the District Judge to be $136,796.
  7. Esthetix held a Class 2 General Builder’s Licence from the Building and Construction Authority.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another, HC/District Court Appeal No 19 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 118

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondents purchased property with intention to demolish existing house and build another
Approval from the Building and Construction Authority sought and obtained
Debris from respondents’ property fell on the boundary wall, damaging it
Appellants commenced District Court Suit No 1426 of 2012
District Court Appeal No 19 of 2015
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and others [2015] SGDC 315
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Vicarious Liability
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondents were not vicariously liable as Esthetix was an independent contractor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Independent contractor defence
      • Policy considerations for vicarious liability
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 3 SLR 540
      • [2005] 2 SLR(R) 613
      • [2012] 3 WLR 1319
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondents did not breach their duty of care and were not negligent in the selection of Esthetix.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty of care
      • Breach of duty
      • Causation
      • Non-delegable duty
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
  3. Non-Delegable Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court held that the demolition works were not ultra-hazardous and therefore did not give rise to a non-delegable duty of care.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ultra-hazardous activities
      • Scope of duty
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 3 WLR 324
      • [1934] 1 KB 191

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and othersDistrict CourtYes[2015] SGDC 315SingaporeThe District Judge's grounds of decision were comprehensively set out in the judgment.
Biffa Waste Services Ltd and another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GmbH and othersEnglish Court of AppealYes[2009] 3 WLR 324England and WalesRelied upon heavily to determine that the ultra-hazardous exception should be kept as narrow as possible.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 540SingaporeCited for the principle that vicarious liability is a form of derivative liability.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan 2297 v Seasons Park LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 613SingaporeCited for the principle that an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd and others (King Wan Construction Pte Ltd and others, third parties)High CourtYes[2016] 2 SLR 793SingaporeEmphasized that non-delegable duties are primary and personal, not an exception to the rule that vicarious liability cannot arise out of the tort of an independent contractor.
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and othersUK Supreme CourtYes[2012] 3 WLR 1319United KingdomRelied upon for the policy-centric approach to vicarious liability.
Cox v Ministry of JusticeUK Supreme CourtYes[2016] 2 WLR 806United KingdomRecently affirmed the Christian Brothers case and the two-stage approach which it introduced.
Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plcUK Supreme CourtYes[2016] 2 WLR 821United KingdomRecently affirmed the Christian Brothers case and the two-stage approach which it introduced.
BNM (administratrix of the estate of B, deceased) on her own behalf and on behalf of others v National University of Singapore and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 931SingaporeCited for the principle that a plea that the tortfeasor is an independent contractor may be said to be a defence to vicarious liability.
Bazley v CurryCanadian Supreme CourtYes[1999] 2 SCR 534CanadaDiscussed the concept of an enterprise risk.
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and othersEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2006] 2 WLR 428England and WalesThose who set in motion and profit from the activities of their employees should compensate those who are injured by such activities even when performed negligently.
Hong Cassley and others v GMP Securities Europe LLP and anotherEnglish High CourtYes[2015] EWHC 722 (QB)England and WalesDistinguished on the facts regarding causation in negligent selection liability.
Michael John Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket ClubEnglish Court of AppealYes[2003] EWCA Civ 1575England and WalesDistinguished on the facts regarding causation in negligent selection liability.
M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v StevensonHouse of LordsYes[1932] AC 562United KingdomThe manufacturer of the ginger beer owed a duty of care to his consumers to ensure that he took reasonable care to manufacture products which were safe for consumption.
Leichhardt Municipal Council v MontgomeryHigh Court of AustraliaYes[2007] 233 ALR 200AustraliaTo describe a duty as non-delegable is to state a proposition about the nature and content of the duty of care.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 241United KingdomThe common law imposes a positive duty on persons in respect of the acts of third parties in some instances, usually where there is a special relationship between the defendant and the third party or where the defendant is responsible for creating a source of danger which may be triggered by the third party.
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty LtdHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1994) 120 ALR 42AustraliaWhat is required of the hirer is a degree of diligence so unattainable that it leads, for all intents and purposes, to strict liability.
Honeywill and Stein Limited v Larkin Brothers (London’s Commercial Photographers) LimitedEnglish Court of AppealYes[1934] 1 KB 191England and WalesThe locus classicus for the doctrine of ultra-hazardous acts.
Read v J Lyons & Company LimitedHouse of LordsYes[1947] AC 156United KingdomRejected as impracticable the notion that any coherent distinction could be drawn between acts which were merely dangerous and those which were so dangerous that special rules of liability should attach.
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Proprietary Limited and anotherHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1986) 160 CLR 16AustraliaHeld that the doctrine of ultra-hazardous acts had no place in Australian law.
Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hall and another appealNew South Wales Court of AppealYes[2008] NSWCA 294AustraliaThe view in the authorities is that Stevens is good law.
Mohd Sainudin bin Ahmad v Consolidated Hotels Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 787SingaporeRecognized the existence of the principle of ultra-hazardous acts, albeit obiter.
The “Sunrise Crane”Court of AppealYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 715SingaporeRecognized the existence of the principle of ultra-hazardous acts, albeit obiter.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeRelied on for the two-stage Spandeck framework.
Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham WaterworksCourt of ExchequerYes[1856] 11 Ex 781England and WalesWhether there has been a breach of duty depends crucially on the standard of care to be applied.
George Martin Hughes v John PercivalHouse of LordsYes(1883) 8 App Cas 443United KingdomThe content of a non-delegable duty is to see that reasonable skill and care is exercised by an independent contractor in the performance of his task; it does not amount to a legal guarantee that no harm at all would result.
Stansbie v TromanEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[1948] 2 KB 48England and WalesThe contractual relationship between the parties was held to be sufficient to found a duty of care on the part of the defendant to take reasonable care with regard to the safety of the premises during the performance of his work.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 1004United KingdomThe combination of (i) special knowledge and (ii) a special relationship was sufficient to found a duty of care.
Haynes v HarwoodEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[1935] 1 KB 146England and WalesThe defendant had created a source of danger which could foreseeably be triggered by the acts of a third party.
David Daniel v The Directors, &C, of the Metropolitan Railway CompanyHouse of LordsYes(1871) LR 5 HL 45United KingdomThe ordinary business of life could not go on if we had not a right to rely upon things being properly done when we have committed and entrusted them to persons whose duty it is to do things of that nature.
See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 284SingaporeThe Court of Appeal subsumed the law on occupiers’ liability within the general law of negligence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Vicarious liability
  • Independent contractor
  • Non-delegable duty
  • Ultra-hazardous
  • Turnkey basis
  • Demolition works
  • Negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Causation
  • Enterprise risk

15.2 Keywords

  • Vicarious liability
  • Independent contractor
  • Negligence
  • Construction
  • Demolition
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Vicarious liability95
Negligence90
Duty of Care90
Non-delegable duties85
Independent contractors70
Personal Injury60
Ultra-hazardous activities60
Damages30
Construction Law20
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Construction
  • Negligence
  • Vicarious Liability