Singapore Rifle Association v Singapore Shooting Association: Negligence and Occupiers' Liability

The Singapore Rifle Association (SRA) appealed against the High Court's decision regarding its counterclaim against the Singapore Shooting Association (SSA) for losses caused by a flood at the National Shooting Centre. SRA alleged negligence by SSA in maintaining the premises. The Court of Appeal dismissed SRA's appeal, finding that SSA did not breach any duty of care and that SSA's actions did not cause the losses. The court clarified the application of occupiers' liability law in this case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a negligence claim for flood damage. The court found no breach of duty by the Singapore Shooting Association, dismissing the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

22 July 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Singapore Rifle Association	Appellant	Association	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Teo Ying Ying Denise of Drew & Napier LLC Wong Hin Pkin Wendell of Drew & Napier LLC Evelyn Tan of Drew & Napier LLC
The Singapore Shooting Association	Respondent	Association	Appeal Upheld	Won	Lee Hwee Khiam Anthony of Bih Li & Lee LLP Clement Chen of Bih Li & Lee LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Tay Yong Kwang	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Chao Hick Tin	Senior Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Teo Ying Ying Denise	Drew & Napier LLC
Wong Hin Pkin Wendell	Drew & Napier LLC
Evelyn Tan	Drew & Napier LLC
Lee Hwee Khiam Anthony	Bih Li & Lee LLP
Clement Chen	Bih Li & Lee LLP

4. Facts

SSA is the lessee of the Premises from Sport Singapore under a lease agreement dated 29 December 2008.
SRA is a member club of SSA and occupies part of the Premises under a gratuitous license.
The Premises were handed over to HCJ Construction Pte Ltd for renovation works in preparation for the 2015 SEA Games.
The 1st Flood occurred on 24 December 2014 due to a landslip at the unlined drain.
The 2nd Flood occurred on 3 May 2015 due to the clogging of Culvert B by debris.
SRA counterclaimed against SSA to seek compensation for the losses caused by two floods.
SSA withdrew its claim against SRA, leaving only SRA’s counterclaim to proceed to trial.

5. Formal Citations

Singapore Rifle Association v Singapore Shooting Association, Civil Appeal No 132 of 2017, [2018] SGCA 42

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2000-01-01	Arrangement between SSA and SRA regarding the Premises began
2008-12-29	Master Lease agreement between SSA and Sport Singapore
2013-08-01	Trucks carrying earth fill material and debris frequently entered the Premises
2013-10-30	Premises handed over to HCJ Construction Pte Ltd for renovation works
2014-12-01	HCJ handed over the Premises back to Sport SG and SSA
2014-12-24	The 1st Flood occurred at the Premises
2015-03-03	The 2nd Flood occurred at the Premises
2015-01-01	2015 Southeast Asian Games
2015-01-01	HC/Suit No 1057 of 2015 filed
2017-01-23	Sport SG sent a letter to SRA
2017-02-14	Mr. Pattiselanno gave evidence in court
2017-02-21	Mr. Pattiselanno returned to court to testify
2017-01-01	Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association [2017] SGHC 266
2018-05-08	Parties' oral submissions heard
2018-07-23	Decision delivered

7. Legal Issues

Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that SSA did not breach any duty of care that it owed to SRA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 3 SLR 284
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
Breach of Duty
- Outcome: The court found that SSA did not breach any duty of care that it owed to SRA.
- Category: Substantive
Causation
- Outcome: The court found that SSA's actions did not cause the losses that SRA complained of.
- Category: Substantive
Occupiers' Liability
- Outcome: The court clarified how that law should be applied in the present case.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 3 SLR 284

8. Remedies Sought

Compensation for losses
Recovery of vacant possession of the land and premises

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Sports
Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 266	Singapore	The decision of the Judge is reported as Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association [2017] SGHC 266 (“the GD”).
See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 284	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the law in Singapore on occupiers’ liability could and should be subsumed under the tort of negligence.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100	Singapore	Cited for the overarching framework for the imposition of a duty of care in negligence claims.
Khng Thian Huat and another v Riduan bin Yusof and another	N/A	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 130	Singapore	Cited regarding the issue-based approach towards costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

National Shooting Centre
Premises
Singapore Rifle Association
Singapore Shooting Association
Sport Singapore
Gratuitous Licence
Unlined Drain
Landslip
Slope Failure
Renovation Period
Occupiers' Liability

15.2 Keywords

negligence
occupiers liability
flood
Singapore Rifle Association
Singapore Shooting Association
appeal
duty of care
causation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Negligence	95
Torts	75
Occupiers' Liability	60
Property Law	50
Landlord and Tenant Law	40
Civil Procedure	30
Costs	25

16. Subjects

Tort Law
Negligence
Occupiers' Liability
Civil Procedure