Ng Siok Poh v Sim Lian-Koru: Damages for Tort Affecting Land & Property

In Ng Siok Poh and Lim Hong Liu, as administrators of the estate of Lim Lian Chiat (deceased), v Sim Lian-Koru Bena JV Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a claim in tort for damage to property caused by the defendant's construction works. The court assessed damages at $462,200.76, determining that reinstatement costs based on the Aesthetics Method were the appropriate measure of damages. The court declined to award interest on the damages and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs fixed at $68,000 and reasonable disbursements save for disbursements incurred for the second tranche of the hearing.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Damages assessed at $462,200.76 and costs fixed at $68,000 plus reasonable disbursements save for disbursements incurred for the second tranche of the hearing.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on damages for tort affecting land, specifically addressing the measure of damages and interest on special damages for property damage.

1.7 Decision Date

26 September 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
SIM LIAN-KORU BENA JV PTE LTD	Defendant	Corporation	Damages Assessed	Lost	Mahendra Prasad Rai of Cooma & Rai
Ng Siok Poh	Plaintiff	Individual	Damages Awarded	Partial	Lai Swee Fung of UniLegal LLC
Lim Hong Liu	Plaintiff	Individual	Damages Awarded	Partial	Lai Swee Fung of UniLegal LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kannan Ramesh	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Mahendra Prasad Rai	Cooma & Rai
Lai Swee Fung	UniLegal LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiffs sued the defendant in tort for causing damage to the Property.
Plaintiffs obtained interlocutory judgment by consent with damages to be assessed.
Mr. Lim designed and built the Property in the 1970s as a family home.
The Property had great sentimental value to the Lim family.
The Lim family decided not to sell the Property.
Defendant began construction works for The Amery in late 2008.
In about late March 2009, the second plaintiff noticed that the Property had sustained damage.
The Lim family continued to reside in the Property as of the date of the proceedings.

5. Formal Citations

Ng Siok Poh (administratrix of the estate of Lim Lian Chiat, deceased) and another v Sim Lian-Koru Bena JV Pte Ltd, Suit No 248 of 2014, [2017] SGHC 231

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1970-01-01	Mr. Lim designed and built the Property.
1987-10-07	Mr. Lim passed away.
2008-12-01	Defendant began construction works for The Amery.
2009-03-01	Second plaintiff noticed damage to the Property.
2009-04-02	Second plaintiff suspected the Property was tilting.
2009-04-03	Joint inspection of the Property was conducted.
2009-04-08	Two tiltmeters were installed on the Property.
2009-04-15	BCA issued a Stop Work Order.
2009-05-15	Dr. Yong issued a report on the excavation works.
2009-06-25	Dr. Yong issued a further report certifying that the Property was safe for residential usage.
2009-08-11	Dr. Yong issued a letter certifying that the Property was structurally sound and safe for its continued occupation.
2010-11-01	Temporary Occupation Permit for The Amery was issued.
2012-07-27	JIB Specialist Consultants Pte Ltd prepared the July 2012 Report.
2014-03-04	Plaintiffs commenced Suit 248.
2014-08-14	Plaintiffs obtained interlocutory judgment.
2015-11-03	First tranche of the assessment of damages hearing was convened.
2015-11-04	Site visit to assess the extent of the problem caused by the tilt.
2015-12-03	Second plaintiff applied for leave to adduce further evidence.
2016-04-04	Court granted the second plaintiff’s application.
2017-02-20	Second tranche of the hearing was held.
2017-06-30	Damages assessed at $462,200.76 and brief grounds of decision delivered.
2017-07-25	Court decided not to award interest on the damages assessed and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs.
2017-09-27	Full grounds of decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Measure of Damages for Tortious Damage to Land
- Outcome: The court held that the appropriate measure of damages was the reinstatement costs based on the Aesthetics Method.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reinstatement Costs
  - Diminution in Value
  - Reasonableness of Reinstatement
- Related Cases:
  - [2004] 2 SLR(R) 117
  - [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 345
  - [1977] 1 WLR 659
  - [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 38
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 385
  - [1996] AC 344
Appropriate Mode of Reinstatement
- Outcome: The court held that damages should be assessed based on the Aesthetics Method, as it would not result in a significantly diminished appearance, life, or utility of the property compared to the more expensive Underpinning Method.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Underpinning Method
  - Aesthetics Method
  - Diminished Appearance
  - Life or Utility of Property
- Related Cases:
  - [1908] AC 323
  - [1980] 1 WLR 433
Entitlement to Damages for Loss of Amenity
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover a further sum for loss of amenity, as it would result in double recovery.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Visual Impairment
  - Sensational Impairment
  - Double Recovery
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] EWCA Civ 762
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 302
  - [2005] 4 SLR(R) 351
Award of Interest on Damages
- Outcome: The court decided not to award interest on the damages, as the plaintiffs had not been kept out of money in practical terms.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Practical Terms
  - Inflation
  - Special Damages
- Related Cases:
  - [1983–1984] SLR(R) 723
  - [1994] 1 AC 142

8. Remedies Sought

Costs of reinstating the Property to its original state
Alternative accommodation and transport expenses
Diminution in value of the Property

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Private Nuisance

10. Practice Areas

Construction Litigation
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd v Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 117	Singapore	Cited as the leading local authority on the measure of damages for tortious damage to land.
Hole & Son (Sayers Common) Ltd v Harrisons of Thurnscoe Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 345	N/A	Cited to illustrate that reinstatement costs are not awarded if the plaintiff intends to demolish the damaged property.
CR Taylor (Wholesale) Ltd and others v Hepworths Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1977] 1 WLR 659	N/A	Cited to illustrate that reinstatement costs are not awarded if the plaintiff holds the property solely for its development potential and does not intend to reinstate it.
Hollebone and others v Midhurst and Fernhust Builders Ltd and Eastman & White of Midhurst Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 38	N/A	Cited to illustrate that reinstatement costs can be awarded if the damaged property is unique.
Yap Boon Keng Sonny v Pacific Prince International Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 385	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that it is not reasonable to demolish and rebuild if the cost is disproportionate to the loss.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth	N/A	Yes	[1996] AC 344	N/A	Cited to support the principle that if it is unreasonable to award reinstatement costs, it must be because the loss sustained does not extend to the need to reinstate.
Southampton Container Terminals Ltd v Schiffahrtsgesellschaft “Hansa Australia” mbH & Co (The Maersk Colombo)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 275	England and Wales	Cited to support the principle that the measure of damages for tortious damage to land and breach of contract are the same.
Lodge Holes Colliery Co Ltd v Mayor of Wednesbury	House of Lords	Yes	[1908] AC 323	England and Wales	Cited to illustrate that a court should be slow to countenance captious objections by a tortfeasor to the rectification methods adopted by the victim.
Dodd Properties Ltd and another v Canterbury City Council and others	N/A	Yes	[1980] 1 WLR 433	N/A	Cited to illustrate that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable cost of doing reasonable work of restoration and repair.
Bryant v Macklin	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] EWCA Civ 762	England and Wales	Cited to support the award of general damages to reflect the loss of amenity which the plaintiffs would suffer.
Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 302	Singapore	Cited in reliance on Lord Mustill’s reasoning in Ruxley.
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Tan Chin Seng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 351	Singapore	Cited to show that the Court of Appeal set aside the award for loss of amenity in Tan Chin Seng without commenting on the basis of the award.
Lim Cheng Wah v Ng Yaw Kim	N/A	Yes	[1983–1984] SLR(R) 723	Singapore	Cited to support the basis on which interest is awarded is that a party has been kept out of money that ought to have been paid to him or her.
Giles v Thompson	N/A	Yes	[1994] 1 AC 142	N/A	Cited to support the principle that it is important to examine whether a party has been kept out of money in practical terms.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Reinstatement Costs
Aesthetics Method
Underpinning Method
Safety Reserve
Angular Distortion
Differential Distortion
Safety Limits
Tiltmeters
Diminution in Value
Loss of Amenity

15.2 Keywords

Tort
Damages
Property
Construction
Singapore
High Court
Reinstatement
Negligence
Nuisance

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Measure of Damages	90
Damages	80
Torts	70
Property Law	50
Civil Litigation	40
Contract Law	30
Civil Procedure	30
Breach of Contract	30

16. Subjects

Tort
Damages
Real Property
Construction