Arnold William v Tanoto Shipyard: Negligence, Contributory Negligence & Duty of Care in Diving Accident

Arnold William, a freelance diver, sued Tanoto Shipyard Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, appealing a District Court decision that found both parties equally liable for an accident at the shipyard on 15 April 2010. William claimed negligence and breach of duty of care. The High Court, presided over by Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu, allowed William's appeal, finding the District Court's assessment of contributory negligence unsubstantiated by evidence. The court determined that Tanoto Shipyard failed to provide a safe system of work.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's appeal allowed with costs; Defendant's appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Freelance diver Arnold William sued Tanoto Shipyard for negligence after a workplace accident. The court found the shipyard liable for failing to provide a safe system of work.

1.7 Decision Date

5 May 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Arnold William	Appellant, Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Jayamani Jose Charles
Tanoto Shipyard Pte Ltd	Respondent, Defendant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Anparasan S/O Kamachi, Tan Wei Ming

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Senior Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jayamani Jose Charles	Jose Charles & Co
Anparasan S/O Kamachi	KhattarWong LLP
Tan Wei Ming	KhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff, a freelance diver, was injured at defendant's shipyard.
Defendant was preparing to launch a barge using floaters.
Floaters became stuck under the barge.
Plaintiff was hired to remove the stuck floaters.
A floater lurched out and injured the plaintiff's hand.
Floaters were over-inflated by the defendant.

5. Formal Citations

Arnold William v Tanoto Shipyard Pte Ltd, District Court Appeal No 9 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 89

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-04-15	Accident occurred at Tanoto Shipyard
2011-01-01	Lawsuit filed in District Court
2015-08-05	District Court issued judgment
2015-11-20	Appeals heard in High Court
2016-05-06	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the defendant negligent in failing to provide a safe system of work.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of duty
  - Contributory negligence
Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court determined that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
Contributory Negligence
- Outcome: The court initially found the plaintiff contributorily negligent, but this finding was overturned on appeal.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction
Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100	Singapore	Cited for the Spandeck test to determine duty of care to independent contractors.
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox	Unknown	Yes	258 ALR 673	Australia	Cited regarding the duty owed by principals to independent contractors.
Steven v Brodibb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1986) 160 CLR 16	Australia	Cited regarding the duty owed by principals to independent contractors.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Floater
Unslipping operation
Slipway
Pad-eye
Diving assignment
Independent contractor
Safe system of work

15.2 Keywords

Negligence
Diver
Shipyard
Personal Injury
Contributory Negligence
Duty of Care

16. Subjects

Negligence
Personal Injury
Occupational Safety

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Negligence
Evidence
Civil Procedure