Grace Electrical Engineering v Te Deum Engineering: Negligence & Res Ipsa Loquitur in Fire Safety Act Breach
Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd (Appellant) appealed against the High Court's decision in favor of Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent), concerning a negligence claim arising from a fire that started at the Appellant's premises and spread to the Respondent's. The High Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, finding the Appellant liable for damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the Appellant was negligent and liable for the damages.
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
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Grace Electrical Engineering sued for negligence after a fire spread to Te Deum Engineering's premises. The court applied res ipsa loquitur, finding Grace liable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Judgment for Respondent | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- A fire broke out at the appellant's premises and spread to the respondent's premises.
- The appellant's premises were licensed for use as a factory but were used as accommodation for foreign workers.
- The appellant was convicted of breaches of the Fire Safety Act for unauthorized change of use.
- The appellant permitted its workers to cook their meals on the premises.
- The fire started at the rear of the appellant’s premises.
- The appellant had received prior notices of fire safety offences.
- The appellant had numerous electrical appliances and wirings on the premises due to the unauthorized accommodation.
5. Formal Citations
- Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd, , [2017] SGCA 65
- Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd, 156 of 2016, Civil Appeal No 156 of 2016
- Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd v Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd, , [2016] SGHC 232
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Fire broke out at the appellant’s premises and spread to the adjoining property | |
| Appellant amended its pleadings to allege that the fire had instead started on the respondent’s premises | |
| High Court judge found that the fire had started on the appellant’s premises and spread to the respondent’s premises | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the appellant liable for negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Res Ipsa Loquitur
- Outcome: The court applied the rule of res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence on the part of the appellant.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Statutory Duty
- Outcome: The court considered the appellant's breaches of the Fire Safety Act in determining whether the appellant had breached its duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Electrical Engineering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNJ (suing by her lawful father and litigation representative, B) v SMRT Trains Ltd and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 7 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for the application of res ipsa loquitur. |
| Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Company | Exchequer Court | Yes | (1865) 3 H & C 596 | England and Wales | Cited for the requirements for the application of res ipsa loquitur. |
| Shimizu Corp v Lim Tiang Chuan and another (The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd, third party) | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case regarding the evidence on the possible cause of the fire. |
| Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 146 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of statutory regulations does not automatically equate to a breach of a common law duty of care. |
| Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Faith Maritime Co Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's discretion to grant leave to introduce new points on appeal. |
| North Staffordshire Railway Company v Edge | House of Lords | Yes | [1920] AC 254 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the efficiency and authority of a Court of Appeal. |
| Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 116 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for the application of res ipsa loquitur. |
| Teng Ah Kow and another v Ho Sek Chiu and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 43 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for the application of res ipsa loquitur and the application of the rule in fire outbreak cases. |
| Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1971] 1 WLR 749 | England and Wales | Cited for the standard of proof required to establish a prima facie case of negligence under res ipsa loquitur. |
| Wayfoong Credit Limited and others v Tsui Siu Man t/a Wilson Plastics Manufactory | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984] HKCA 205 | Hong Kong | Cited as an example of a case where the court declined to apply res ipsa loquitur in a fire outbreak case. |
| Sochacki v Sas and another | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1947] 1 All ER 344 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the mere occurrence of a fire does not in itself give rise to the inference of negligence. |
| Paquette v Labelle | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | (1981) 33 O.R. (2d) 425 | Canada | Cited as an example of a case where the court declined to apply res ipsa loquitur in a fire outbreak case. |
| Flannigan v British Dyewood Company Limited | Outer House, Court of Session | Yes | [1970] SLT 285 | Scotland | Cited for the principle that the mere occurrence of a fire does not in itself give rise to the inference of negligence. |
| Blue and White Barra Pty Ltd v Solley | Supreme Court of South Australia | Yes | [2001] SASC 194 | Australia | Cited as an example of a case where the court declined to apply res ipsa loquitur in a fire outbreak case. |
| Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate Conception v Robert J Fudge Ltd | New Brunswick Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] NBJ No 322 | Canada | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied res ipsa loquitur in a fire outbreak case. |
| Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1987] 1 QB 730 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where the defendant has committed a negligent act or omission, the court is more likely to apply the rule where such negligent act or omission has created or increased the risk of the occurrence of fire. |
| Virco Metal Industries Pte Ltd and another v Carltech Trading and Industries Pte Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case regarding the relevance of a breach of statutory duty to a common law duty of care. |
| Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 360 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the existence and scope of a statutory duty may inform the existence of a common law duty of care. |
| Barkway v South Wales Transport Co | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1948] 2 All ER 460 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that it is insufficient for the defendant to merely show that the accident was due to a neutral event in its attempt to rebut the inference of negligence. |
| Colvilles Ltd v Devine | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 1 WLR 475 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the defence must put forward a plausible explanation and must go further to show that this explanation is consistent with no negligence on the defendant’s part. |
| Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Ptv Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2000) 170 ALR 594 | Australia | Cited regarding the application of res ipsa loquitur when the cause of the accident is known. |
| Woods v Duncan | House of Lords | Yes | [1946] AC 401 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the defence must put forward a plausible explanation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Fire Safety Act (Cap 109A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Insurance Act (Cap 142, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Fire Safety Act
- Negligence
- Breach of statutory duty
- Evidential burden
- Prima facie case
- Workers' dormitory
- Electrical fault
- Duty of care
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- res ipsa loquitur
- fire
- fire safety act
- singapore
- electrical
- engineering
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Negligence | 95 |
| Torts | 90 |
| Breach of Statutory Duty | 80 |
| Fire Safety | 75 |
| Construction Law | 10 |
| Measure of Damages | 5 |
| Evidence | 5 |
| Contract Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Negligence Law
- Fire Safety
- Statutory Interpretation