NTUC Foodfare v SIA Engineering: Negligence & Pure Economic Loss Claim at Changi Airport

NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd sued SIA Engineering Company Limited and Yap Tee Chuan in the High Court of Singapore on 9 October 2017, claiming negligence after Yap Tee Chuan, an employee of SIA Engineering, collided an airtug into a pillar at Changi Airport Terminal 2, leading to a closure notice and economic losses for NTUC Foodfare's Wang Café kiosk. The court dismissed NTUC Foodfare's claim, finding that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, as the losses constituted pure economic loss.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff’s claims against both defendants are dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

NTUC Foodfare sues SIA Engineering for negligence after an airtug collision damaged Changi Airport, causing business closure and economic loss. Claim dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
SIA Engineering Company LimitedDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
Yap Tee ChuanDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Debbie OngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N K RajarhStraits Law Practice LLC
Cheong Wei Yang DarylStraits Law Practice LLC
Tan Yiting GinaLegal Solutions LLC
Kwek Yiu Wing KevinLegal Solutions LLC

4. Facts

  1. Second defendant drove an airtug into a pillar at Changi Airport Terminal 2 on 13 February 2014.
  2. The collision damaged the cantilever portion of the floor of the Transit Lounge.
  3. Building and Construction Authority issued a closure notice from 14 February 2014 to 30 July 2014.
  4. NTUC Foodfare operated a food kiosk, Wang Café, in the affected area.
  5. NTUC Foodfare claimed for repair/replacement of equipment, loss of profits, rebuilding of kiosk, and rental during renovation.
  6. NTUC Foodfare's kiosk did not suffer physical damage directly from the collision.
  7. NTUC Foodfare received an insurance payout of $176,176.85 from NTUC Income.

5. Formal Citations

  1. NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another, Suit No 1251 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 250

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Airtug collision into a pillar at Changi Airport Terminal 2 Building
Building and Construction Authority issued a closure notice
NTUC Foodfare met with Changi Airport Group
NTUC Foodfare gained entry to the kiosk to assess its equipment
Changi Airport Group informed NTUC Foodfare that it would be permitted to commence business operations with a qualified person's or professional engineer's endorsement
Building and Construction Authority lifted its closure notice
Date that businesses at the Transit Lounge were to be reopened
Cunningham Lindsey carried out an inspection
Changi Airport Group agreed to grant NTUC Foodfare a fresh 3-year lease
NTUC Foodfare retrieved their equipment
NTUC Foodfare eventually resumed business
Suit No 1251 of 2015 filed
Hearing began
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Causal proximity
      • Circumstantial proximity
      • Voluntary assumption of responsibility
      • Reasonable reliance
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR (R) 100
      • [1986] PC 1
  2. Pure Economic Loss
    • Outcome: The court characterized the plaintiff's losses as pure economic loss.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1986] 1 AC 785
      • [1999] 2 SLR(R) 134

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Food and Beverage
  • Aviation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1986] 1 AC 785England and WalesCited for the principle that only a person with legal ownership or possessory title to property at the time of loss or damage may sue in negligence for damages.
The “Patraikos 2”High CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 966SingaporeCited for the application of Aliakmon in Singapore courts regarding the requirement of title to damaged property for suing in negligence.
Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another v Socomec SACourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 1057SingaporeCited for the application of Aliakmon in Singapore courts regarding the requirement of title to damaged property for suing in negligence.
D&F Estates Ltd and others v Church Commissioners for EnglandHouse of LordsYes[1988] 1 AC 177England and WalesCited for the principle that expenses incurred to avoid future property damage or personal injury are pure economic losses when a defect is discovered before any property damage or personal injury has materialized.
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (formerly known as Raglan Squire & Partners FE) v MCST Plan No 1075 and anorCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 134SingaporeCited for the principle that expenses incurred to avoid future property damage or personal injury are pure economic losses when a defect is discovered before any property damage or personal injury has materialized.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR (R) 100SingaporeCited for setting out the test for duty of care in negligence.
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon KweeHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 146SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have generally recognised a duty of care to protect a plaintiff against pure economic loss only where the defendant has voluntarily assumed responsibility to the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff has reasonably relied on the defendant to take care to avoid such loss.
Goh Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AGCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 559SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have generally recognised a duty of care to protect a plaintiff against pure economic loss only where the defendant has voluntarily assumed responsibility to the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff has reasonably relied on the defendant to take care to avoid such loss.
Candlewood Navigation Corporation Ltd v Mitsui OSK Lines and anorPrivy CouncilYes[1986] PC 1United KingdomCited for the principle that the common law does not recognize a person whose only rights are a contractual right to have the use or services of the chattel for purposes of making profits or gains without possession of or property in the chattel.
Elliott Steam Tug Co. Ltd v Shipping ControllerKing's Bench DivisionYes[1922] 1 KB 127England and WalesCited for the principle that the common law does not recognize a person whose only rights are a contractual right to have the use or services of the chattel for purposes of making profits or gains without possession of or property in the chattel.
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad”High Court of AustraliaYes(1976) 136 CLR 529AustraliaDiscussed in relation to the recovery of economic loss sustained as a result of damage negligently caused to the property of a third party, but ultimately distinguished.
Weller and Co. v Foot & Mouth Disease Research InstituteCourt of AppealYes[1965] 3 WLR 1082England and WalesCited for the principle that losses are not within the scope of the defendant’s duty of care because the injury to the claimants was not foreseeable and direct.
Perre v Apand Pty LtdHigh Court of AustraliaYes[1999] HCA 36AustraliaDiscussed in relation to claims by parties suffering economic loss due to damage to a third party’s property.
Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific SteamshipSupreme Court of CanadaYes[1992] 1 SCR 1021CanadaDiscussed in relation to claims by parties suffering economic loss due to damage to a third party’s property.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 853SingaporeCited for the principle that the twin indicia of voluntary assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance are in many cases the best and most practical criteria for establishing whether or not there is proximity between the claimant and the defendant from a legal standpoint.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Airtug
  • Changi Airport Terminal 2
  • Transit Lounge
  • Closure notice
  • Pure economic loss
  • Duty of care
  • Subrogation
  • Qualified person
  • Professional engineer

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Economic Loss
  • Duty of Care
  • Changi Airport
  • Singapore
  • NTUC Foodfare
  • SIA Engineering

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence90
Torts70
Personal Injury40
Commercial Disputes20
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Negligence Law
  • Economic Loss