PEX International v Lim Seng Chye: Nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher & Foreseeability

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals from PEX International Pte Ltd ('PEX') and Lim Seng Chye ('Lim') regarding a fire that damaged Lim's property due to hot works on PEX's adjacent property. The High Court found PEX liable for private nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, but not for negligence. PEX appealed the nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher findings, while Lim appealed the negligence finding. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, clarifying the role of foreseeability in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, emphasizing that foreseeability of the risk of harm is not generally required for liability in nuisance when the nuisance is authorized by the defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Both appeals dismissed. The court upheld the High Court's decision that PEX was liable in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, but clarified the role of foreseeability in these torts.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal case concerning liability for fire damage under nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, clarifying the role of foreseeability.

1.7 Decision Date

18 December 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
PEX International Pte Ltd	Appellant, Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Chia Boon Teck, Darryl Chew Zijie, Chan Xian Yi, Jonathan
Lim Seng Chye	Respondent, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Appoo Ramesh, Vinodhan Gunasekaran
Formcraft Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Interlocutory Judgment Entered	Default

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Judge of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Judge of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chia Boon Teck	Chia Wong Chambers LLC
Darryl Chew Zijie	Chia Wong Chambers LLC
Chan Xian Yi, Jonathan	Chia Wong Chambers LLC
Appoo Ramesh	Just Law LLC
Vinodhan Gunasekaran	Just Law LLC

4. Facts

Lim owned a building at 15 Link Road, used as an office and warehouse.
PEX owned the adjacent property at 17 Link Road, used as a warehouse.
PEX engaged Formcraft to undertake construction projects at 17 Link Road.
A fire occurred during hot works carried out by Formcraft at 17 Link Road.
The fire spread to Lim's property, causing extensive damage.
The fire was caused by sparks from the hot works igniting flammable materials on Lim's property.
Formcraft was negligent in performing the A&A works.

5. Formal Citations

PEX International Pte Ltd v Lim Seng Chye and another and another appeal, , [2019] SGCA 82
PEX International Pte Ltd v Lim Seng Chye and Formcraft Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 181 of 2018, Civil Appeal No 181 of 2018
Lim Seng Chye v PEX International Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 183 of 2018, Civil Appeal No 183 of 2018

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-01	Poh introduced Chong to Chan and Tan.
2012-05-01	PEX engaged Formcraft for the First Job.
2012-06-22	PEX made final payment on the First Job.
2012-08-01	PEX engaged Formcraft for the Second Job.
2012-08-01	PEX contacted Formcraft for a quotation for the A&A works.
2012-09-26	PEX engaged ETS Design & Associates to assist in making submissions to the authorities.
2012-09-26	PEX paid ETS $4,800 as a 30% down payment.
2012-10-18	PEX made final payment on the Second Job.
2012-12-31	JTC issued its letter of consent.
2013-01-07	PEX paid ETS $2,400 as a progress payment upon the submission of a plan to JTC for endorsement.
2013-02-06	URA issued its grant of planning permission.
2013-02-20	PEX paid ETS $4,800 as a progress payment.
2013-02-25	PEX signed and accepted a quotation from Formcraft for the A&A works.
2013-04-30	Fire broke out.
2013-10-09	SCDF's investigation report on the fire was issued.
2016-04-19	Lim commenced a suit against PEX and Formcraft.
2016-05-03	Interlocutory judgment was entered against Formcraft.
2019-10-17	Court dismissed both appeals.
2019-12-19	Grounds of decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Private Nuisance
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal clarified that foreseeability of the risk of harm is not generally required for liability in nuisance when the nuisance is authorized by the defendant, but foreseeability of the type of harm is relevant for remoteness of damage. The court found that PEX was liable in nuisance.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unreasonable use of land
  - Foreseeability of harm
  - Interference with enjoyment of land
- Related Cases:
  - [2019] SGHC 28
  - (1868) LR 3 HL 330
  - [2007] SGHC 122
  - [1946] 1 All ER 489
  - [1940] AC 880
  - [1967] AC 617
  - [1994] 2 AC 264
  - [2004] 2 AC 1
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that foreseeability of the risk of harm is not relevant to determining liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The court found that PEX was liable under the rule.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Non-natural use of land
  - Escape of a dangerous substance
  - Foreseeability of damage
- Related Cases:
  - (1868) LR 3 HL 330
  - [1994] 2 AC 264
  - [2004] 2 AC 1
Negligence
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge that Lim’s claim in negligence was not made out.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Duty of care
  - Breach of duty
  - Causation
  - Delegation of duty
- Related Cases:
  - [1932] AC 562
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for insured losses
Damages for uninsured losses (personal injuries)

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Private Nuisance
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher	House of Lords	Yes	(1868) LR 3 HL 330	United Kingdom	Established the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, concerning strict liability for the escape of dangerous substances from one's land.
OTF Aquarium Farm (formerly known as Ong’s Tropical Fish Aquarium & Fresh Flowers) (a firm) v Lian Shing Construction Co Pte Ltd (Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, Third Party)	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 122	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is not a reasonable use of land to create a hazard with a foreseeable risk of damage to a neighbor. The Court of Appeal distinguished its reasoning but noted the case was correctly decided on its facts.
Lim Seng Chye v Pex International Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 28	Singapore	The judgment under appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision on nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, but clarified the role of foreseeability.
M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson	House of Lords	Yes	[1932] AC 562	United Kingdom	Cited for the general principle of reasonable foreseeability in 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 modern test for the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence.
Spicer and another v Smee	Unknown	Yes	[1946] 1 All ER 489	United Kingdom	Cited for the proposition that liability for nuisance can exist independently of negligence and that an owner can be liable for a nuisance created by an independent contractor. The Court of Appeal relied on this case to support its ultimate conclusion.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan and Others	House of Lords	Yes	[1940] AC 880	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that an occupier is liable for a nuisance created by a trespasser if they have knowledge or means of knowledge of the nuisance and fail to correct it.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty and another	Privy Council	Yes	[1967] AC 617	United Kingdom	Also known as Wagon Mound (No 2). Cited for the principle that foreseeability is relevant in determining the amount of damages in nuisance. Clarified by Cambridge Water.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1994] 2 AC 264	United Kingdom	Cited for clarifying that foreseeability of the type of harm is relevant for remoteness of damage in nuisance, but foreseeability of the risk of harm is generally irrelevant. The Court of Appeal adopted the reasoning in this case.
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council	House of Lords	Yes	[2004] 2 AC 1	United Kingdom	Cited for the discussion on the relationship between nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and the role of foreseeability. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the reasoning in this case.
Northumbrian Water Limited v Sir Robert McAlpine Limited	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] EWCA Civ 685	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that foreseeability of the risk of harm is generally relevant to establishing liability in nuisance under English law.
Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 116	Singapore	Cited as a Singapore High Court decision that could be interpreted as suggesting that foreseeability of the risk of harm is relevant in establishing liability for nuisance. The Court of Appeal distinguished its reasoning but noted the case was correctly decided on its facts.
Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 614	Singapore	Cited for imposing a stricter duty to support adjacent property in Singapore due to land scarcity, relevant to the standard of care in nuisance.
Fletcher v Rylands and another	Exchequer Chamber	Yes	Fletcher v Rylands and another (1866) LR 1 Ex 265	United Kingdom	Cited for Blackburn J's original conception of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

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

Hot works
Foreseeability
Private nuisance
Rylands v Fletcher
Independent contractor
Unreasonable use of land
Remoteness of damage

15.2 Keywords

Nuisance
Rylands v Fletcher
Foreseeability
Fire
Construction
Singapore
Tort

16. Subjects

Tort Law
Property Law
Negligence
Nuisance

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Nuisance
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher