NTUC Foodfare v SIA Engineering: Negligence, Duty of Care & Economic Loss

In NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Company Limited and Yap Tee Chuan, the Court of Appeal of Singapore allowed in part the appeal by NTUC Foodfare. The court found that Mr. Yap, an employee of SIA Engineering, owed a duty of care to NTUC Foodfare and was negligent in operating an airtug, causing damage to a pillar supporting NTUC Foodfare's kiosk at Changi Airport. The court awarded damages for losses sustained during the closure period but denied the claim for rebuilding losses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Court of Appeal holds SIA Engineering liable for negligence causing NTUC Foodfare's economic loss due to an airtug accident at Changi Airport.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
SIA Engineering Company LimitedRespondentCorporationVicariously liable for negligenceLost
Yap Tee ChuanRespondentIndividualLiable for negligenceLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Quentin LohJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N K RajarhStraits Law Practice LLC
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Palaniappan SundararajStraits Law Practice LLC
Cheong Wei Yang DarylStraits Law Practice LLC
Charmaine Elizabeth Ong Wan QiLegal Solutions LLC
Tan Yiting GinaLegal Solutions LLC
Kwek Yiu Wing KevinLegal Solutions LLC

4. Facts

  1. NTUC Foodfare operated a Wang Cafe kiosk in Changi Airport Terminal 2.
  2. SIA Engineering's employee, Mr. Yap, negligently drove an airtug into a pillar supporting the kiosk.
  3. The Building and Construction Authority issued a Closure Order, forcing the kiosk to close.
  4. NTUC Foodfare suffered loss of profits during the closure period.
  5. NTUC Foodfare rebuilt the kiosk after the closure order was lifted.
  6. NTUC Foodfare claimed losses including repair of damaged equipment, loss of profits, and rebuilding costs.
  7. The court found Mr. Yap owed a duty of care to NTUC Foodfare and was negligent.

5. Formal Citations

  1. NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No 207 of 2017, [2018] SGCA 41
  2. NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another, , [2017] SGHC 250

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Tenancy agreement signed between NTUC Foodfare and CAG for lease of space in Changi Airport Terminal 2.
Lease term commenced.
Mr. Yap drove an airtug into a pillar supporting the floor of the lounge.
Building and Construction Authority issued a Closure Order for the affected area of the lounge.
CAG held a meeting with NTUC Foodfare.
Building and Construction Authority lifted the Closure Order.
CAG resumed collecting rent from NTUC Foodfare.
CAG agreed to grant a further 3-year term lease to NTUC Foodfare.
NTUC Foodfare resumed business at the outlet.
Loss adjusters issued a report assessing the total loss suffered by NTUC Foodfare.
Transcript of hearing.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Yap owed a duty of care to NTUC Foodfare.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Yap was negligent in operating the airtug.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Causation
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Yap's negligence caused NTUC Foodfare to suffer losses during the closure period, but not the rebuilding losses.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Pure Economic Loss
    • Outcome: The court allowed recovery for pure economic loss, emphasizing the importance of proximity and policy considerations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100

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
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeEstablished the single test for duty of care in tort in Singapore, premised on proximity and policy considerations.
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon KweeHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 146SingaporeReiterated that the precise classification of the loss is immaterial when determining whether a duty of care arises in tort.
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 918SingaporeReiterated that the precise classification of the loss is immaterial when determining whether a duty of care arises in tort.
Donoghue v StevensonHouse of LordsYes[1932] AC 562England and WalesCited for the principle that a defendant ought to have the plaintiff in contemplation when acting.
Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 761SingaporeDeveloped the proximity requirement by holding that it may be apt to consider “proximity factors” in applying that requirement.
Ngiam Kong Seng and another v Lim Chiew HockHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 674SingaporeReiterated that every application of the concept of proximity is heavily dependent on the precise factual matrix concerned.
Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 549SingaporeAlluded to the doctrine of remoteness, under which a plaintiff may not recover losses that are not reasonably foreseeable.
Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1986] 1 AC 785England and WalesCited to contrast English law's requirement of proprietary interest with Singapore law.
Re Tan Tye, deceased; Tan Lian Chye v British & Malayan Trustees LtdFederal CourtYes[1965–1967] SLR(R) 226SingaporeDistinguished regarding the termination clause in a license agreement.
Anns v Merton London Borough CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1978] AC 728England and WalesThe two-stage test in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728, which is essentially the same as the Spandeck test albeit the latter incorporates a threshold requirement of factual foreseeability
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport LtdCourt of AppealYes[1978] 1 WLR 856England and WalesCited regarding the relevance of insurance as a policy consideration.
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman and AnotherHigh CourtYes(1985) 60 ALR 1AustraliaEndorsing the observations of Deane J in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman and Another (1985) 60 ALR 1, that proximity includes physical, circumstantial and causal proximity, and incorporates the twin criteria of voluntary assumption of responsibility (by the defendant) and reliance (by the plaintiff)
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad”High CourtYes(1976) 136 CLR 529AustraliaIn this case, a dredge damaged a pipeline laid on the bed of Botany Bay in New South Wales. This was due to the negligent navigation of the dredge and the negligent preparation of a chart which incorrectly identified the location of the pipeline.
Candlewood Navigation Corporation Ltd v Mitsui OSK Lines and anotherPrivy CouncilYes[1986] AC 1United KingdomSimilarly, in Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co Ltd et al (1992) 91 DLR (4th) 289 (“Norsk”), a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, La Forest J, delivering the judgment of the minority, rejected the known plaintiff test on the basis that knowledge of the individual plaintiff had no normative salience.
Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co Ltd et alSupreme CourtYes(1992) 91 DLR (4th) 289CanadaIn Norsk, the defendants’ negligent operation of a tug, which was towing a barge downstream, caused the barge to collide into a railway bridge.
Morrison Steamship Co Ltd v Greystoke Castle (Cargo Owners)House of LordsYes[1947] AC 265England and WalesIn that case, a negligently operated ship collided into a ship carrying the plaintiffs’ cargo. The plaintiffs made general average contribution to the owners of the ship carrying their cargo.
Murphy v Brentwood District CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1991] 1 AC 398England and WalesHowever, Morrison Steamship “had been regarded as turning on the principles of maritime law rather than establishing any general principle”: see Clerk & Lindsell at para 8-141 fn 652 and Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 at 468E (per Lord Keith of Kinkel).
Perre and others v Apand Pty LtdHigh CourtYes(1999) 198 CLR 180AustraliaIn Perre, the defendant negligently introduced potato disease onto a farm in South Australia (“the Sparnon farm”) by supplying non-certified seed to the farm.
Miller v MillerHigh CourtYes(2011) 242 CLR 446AustraliaInterestingly, although the High Court of Australia has declared that proximity is not a useful principle in determining whether a duty of care arises (see, eg, Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446 at [59]), it appears that proximity continues to endure in the reasoning of Australian courts regarding the duty of care in tort

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
  • Closure Order
  • Duty of Care
  • Economic Loss
  • Negligence
  • Proximity
  • Pure Economic Loss
  • Rebuilding Losses
  • Spandeck Test
  • UBHA

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • duty of care
  • economic loss
  • NTUC Foodfare
  • SIA Engineering
  • airtug
  • Changi Airport
  • Spandeck test

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence95
Torts90
Causation80
Contract Law10
Breach of Contract5
Insurance5

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Negligence
  • Economic Loss
  • Duty of Care