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 Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against Munib Mohammad Madni and Zahrah Ayub, regarding property damage caused by demolition works. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, and Tay Yong Kwang JA, dismissed the appeal, finding the respondents not vicariously liable, not negligent in selecting the contractor, and not owing a non-delegable duty of care. The claim arose from damage to the appellants' property due to the negligence of a contractor hired by the respondents for demolition works.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed on all three issues: vicarious liability, negligent selection, and non-delegable duty of care.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal case concerning vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care for damage caused by negligent demolition work.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Huat Seng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kho Sung Chin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Munib Mohammad Madni | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Zahrah Ayub | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Appellants and respondents owned neighboring properties on a slope.
- Respondents hired Esthetix Design Pte Ltd to carry out demolition and reconstruction works on their property.
- Esthetix was appointed on a "turnkey" basis.
- Debris from the demolition works damaged the boundary wall and the appellants’ property.
- Appellants commenced proceedings against the respondents and Esthetix.
- Esthetix was found to be negligent in carrying out the demolition works.
- Esthetix held a Class 2 General Builder’s Licence from the Building and Construction Authority.
5. Formal Citations
- Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another, Civil Appeal No 99 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 58
- Ng Huat Seng and Kho Sung Chin v Munib Mohammad Madni, Zahrah Ayub and Esthetix Design Pte Ltd, , [2015] SGDC 315
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondents purchased their property intending to demolish the existing house and build another. | |
| Building and Construction Authority approval obtained for works on the respondents’ property. | |
| Debris from demolition works damaged the boundary wall and the appellants’ property. | |
| Appellants commenced proceedings in the District Court against the respondents and Esthetix. | |
| District Judge allowed the appellants’ claim against Esthetix but dismissed the claim against the respondents. | |
| High Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the District Judge’s decision. | |
| Court of Appeal heard the parties. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court held that the respondents were not vicariously liable for the negligence of their independent contractor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Independent contractor negligence
- Existence of special relationship
- Negligent Selection of Contractor
- Outcome: The court held that the respondents were not negligent in selecting the contractor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Standard of care
- Causation
- Non-Delegable Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that the respondents did not owe the appellants a non-delegable duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Ultra-hazardous acts
- Proximity
- Policy considerations
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 373 | Singapore | Affirmed the District Judge's decision that the respondents were not vicariously liable, negligent in selecting the contractor, or owing a non-delegable duty of care. |
| Ng Huat Seng and Kho Sung Chin v Munib Mohammad Madni, Zahrah Ayub and Esthetix Design Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 315 | Singapore | The District Court's decision that Esthetix was negligent but the respondents were not liable was upheld. |
| Biffa Waste Services Ltd and another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GmbH and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 WLR 324 | England and Wales | Adopted the approach that the doctrine of ultra-hazardous acts should be kept as narrow as possible and applied only to activities that are exceptionally dangerous whatever precautions are taken. |
| Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and others | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2012] 3 WLR 1319 | United Kingdom | Adopted the two-stage inquiry in deciding whether vicarious liability should be imposed. |
| Cox v Ministry of Justice | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2016] 2 WLR 806 | United Kingdom | Affirmed the decision in the Christian Brothers case. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Applied the two-stage framework set out in Spandeck to determine if the respondents owed the appellants a personal duty. |
| Honeywill and Stein, Limited v Larkin Brothers (London’s Commercial Photographers), Limited | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1934] 1 KB 191 | England and Wales | Examined in detail the decisions of the English Court of Appeal in Honeywill and Stein, Limited v Larkin Brothers (London’s Commercial Photographers), Limited [1934] 1 KB 191 (“Honeywill”) and Biffa Waste, which presented contrasting approaches to the ambit of the doctrine of ultra-hazardous acts. |
| Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association and others | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2014] AC 537 | United Kingdom | Identified two broad categories in which non-delegable duties might arise. |
| Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks | N/A | Yes | (1856) 11 Ex 781 | N/A | Cited for the applicable standard of care in negligent selection. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | The appellants relied on this case to argue that a multi-factorial approach should be applied to determine whether vicarious liability should be imposed. |
| 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 appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 931 | Singapore | The appellants relied on this case to argue that a multi-factorial approach should be applied to determine whether vicarious liability should be imposed. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 521 | Singapore | The respondents argued that the inquiry into whether a non-delegable duty should be imposed in a particular situation would be more appropriately addressed under the Spandeck test. |
| Read v J Lyons & Company, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1947] AC 156 | United Kingdom | Cited to illustrate that every activity in which man engages is fraught with some possible element of danger to others. |
| Cassidy v Ministry of Health | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1951] 2 KB 343 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of a custodial relationship where non-delegable duties have typically been found. |
| Commonwealth of Australia v Introvigne | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1982) 150 CLR 258 | Australia | Cited as an example of a custodial relationship where non-delegable duties have typically been found. |
| Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Proprietary Limited | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1986) 160 CLR 16 | Australia | Cited as an example of a jurisdiction that appears to have rejected the doctrine of ultra-hazardous acts altogether. |
| Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2007) 230 CLR 22 | Australia | Cited to emphasize that non-delegable duties should remain exceptional. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Vicarious liability
- Non-delegable duty of care
- Independent contractor
- Negligent selection
- Ultra-hazardous acts
- Turnkey basis
- Demolition works
- Proximity
- Causation
15.2 Keywords
- Vicarious liability
- Negligence
- Non-delegable duty
- Construction
- Demolition
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Vicarious liability | 90 |
| Negligence | 90 |
| Torts | 90 |
| Non-delegable duties | 80 |
| Inducement of Breach of Contract | 30 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Construction Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Construction Law
- Negligence
- Vicarious Liability