Lim Seng Chye v Pex International: Nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher & Vicarious Liability

In Lim Seng Chye v Pex International Pte Ltd and Formcraft Pte. Ltd., the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim arising from a fire at the plaintiff's industrial property. The plaintiff, Lim Seng Chye, sued Pex International, the owner of the neighboring property, in negligence, nuisance, and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The court dismissed the negligence claim but found Pex International liable in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Formcraft Pte. Ltd., the contractor, had an interlocutory judgment entered against it. Both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have appealed against the decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim in negligence dismissed; 1st Defendant liable to Plaintiff in nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Fire at Lim Seng Chye's property. Pex International found liable in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, but not vicariously liable.

1.7 Decision Date

10 February 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
PEX International Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Liable in nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher; not liable in negligence.	Partial	Ng Huan Yong of Chia Wong LLP Chia Boon Teck of Chia Wong LLP
Lim Seng Chye	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim in negligence dismissed; claim in nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher allowed.	Partial	Appoo Ramesh of Just Law LLC Vinodhan Gunasekaran of Just Law LLC
Formcraft Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Interlocutory judgment entered against the 2nd Defendant.	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ng Huan Yong	Chia Wong LLP
Chia Boon Teck	Chia Wong LLP
Appoo Ramesh	Just Law LLC
Vinodhan Gunasekaran	Just Law LLC

4. Facts

A fire occurred at the Plaintiff's industrial property at No. 15 Link Road on 30 April 2013.
The Plaintiff is the owner and occupier of No. 15 Link Road.
The 1st Defendant owns the neighboring property at No. 17 Link Road.
The 1st Defendant engaged the 2nd Defendant to carry out addition and alteration works at No. 17 Link Road.
The SCDF concluded that the fire was caused by sparks from hot works at No. 17 Link Road.
The 1st Defendant pleaded guilty to authorising fire safety works without approval under the Fire Safety Act.
The Plaintiff brought the suit pursuant to UOI’s and AXA’s rights of subrogation under the relevant clauses in the insurance policies, and also in respect of alleged uninsured losses.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Seng Chye v Pex International Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 392 of 2016, [2019] SGHC 28

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-01	Plaintiff acquired No. 15 Link Road.
2010-09-01	1st Defendant moved into No. 17 Link Road.
2012-05-01	1st Defendant engaged 2nd Defendant for installation of skylight canopy, skylight windows and ventilation globes, as well as minor repair works.
2012-08-01	1st Defendant engaged 2nd Defendant for replacement of an office window, the installation of signage, and the tearing down of the existing structures at the rear of No. 17.
2012-09-25	ETS Design & Associates quoted the 1st Defendant a total fee of $16,000 for its “professional services”.
2012-09-26	1st Defendant paid ETS a down payment of $4,800.
2012-12-04	ETS invoiced the 1st Defendant $2,400 following the submission made to the Jurong Town Corporation (“JTC”).
2012-12-31	JTC issued its letter of consent.
2013-01-02	ETS invoiced the 1st Defendant $2,400 upon the submission of the JTC-endorsed plan to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (“URA”).
2013-01-07	1st Defendant paid ETS $2,400.
2013-02-06	URA issued its grant of planning permission.
2013-02-06	ETS invoiced the 1st Defendant $2,400 upon the submission of structural plans to the BCA.
2013-02-20	1st Defendant paid ETS $4,800.
2013-02-25	2nd Defendant provided quotation for A&A works.
2013-04-15	1st Defendant paid the 2nd Defendant a 30% down payment of $28,296.15.
2013-04-30	Fire occurred at No. 15 Link Road.
2014-04-23	1st Defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge under section 23(1) of the Fire Safety Act.
2016-05-03	Interlocutory judgment was entered by the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant.
2018-07-03	Trial began.
2018-07-06	Trial continued.
2018-07-10	Trial continued.
2018-07-11	Trial continued.
2018-09-03	Trial concluded.
2019-02-11	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court found that the 1st Defendant could not be held vicariously liable for the 2nd Defendant’s negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 613
  - [2017] 2 SLR 1074
  - [2016] 4 SLR 373
Negligence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim in negligence against the 1st Defendant.
- Category: Substantive
Nuisance
- Outcome: The court found the 1st Defendant liable to the Plaintiff in nuisance.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 533
  - [1967] AC 617
  - [1946] 1 All ER 489
  - [2006] 3 SLR(R) 116
  - [1994] 2 AC 264
  - [2007] SGHC 122
  - (1876) LR 1 QBD 321
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Outcome: The court found the 1st Defendant liable to the Plaintiff under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1868] LR 3 HL 330
  - [2004] 2 AC 1
  - [2011] SGHC 108
Non-Delegable Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that the 1st Defendant did not owe the Plaintiff a non-delegable duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 4 SLR 521
  - [2017] 2 SLR 1074

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for property damage
Damages for personal injuries (PTSD and panic disorder)

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Nuisance
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

10. Practice Areas

Construction Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Rylands v Fletcher	House of Lords	Yes	[1868] LR 3 HL 330	England and Wales	Cited as the basis for the rule of strict liability for dangerous substances escaping from one's land.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 613	Singapore	Cited for the general principle that an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 1074	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the fact that the tortfeasor is an independent contractor will generally exclude vicarious liability.
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for the justification for the exclusion of independent contractors from vicarious liability.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 540	Singapore	Cited for policy considerations underpinning the doctrine of vicarious liability.
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 WLR 428	England and Wales	Cited for the concept of enterprise risk.
BNM (administratrix of the estate of B, deceased) on her own behalf and on behalf of others v National University of Singapore and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 931	Singapore	Cited for the application of the control test in determining whether a contractor is an independent contractor.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Limited	House of Lords	Yes	[1947] AC 1	England and Wales	Cited for the distinction between telling a worker what to do and how to do it.
Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1969] 2 QB 173	England and Wales	Cited for factors to consider in determining whether a contractor is an independent contractor.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 521	Singapore	Cited for the general principles governing non-delegable duties of care.
Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association	United Kingdom Supreme Court	Yes	[2014] AC 537	United Kingdom	Cited for the general principle that tortious liability lies with the party that has engaged in the tortious acts in question.
Hong Cassley and others v GMP Securities Europe LLP and another	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[2015] EWHC 722 (QB)	England and Wales	Cited as an example of how expert evidence may be used in cases involving non-delegable duties of care.
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 146	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a statutory duty does not ipso facto impose a concomitant duty of care at common law.
Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 549	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a statutory duty does not ipso facto impose a concomitant duty of care at common law.
Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 360	Singapore	Cited as a case where the main contractor and sub-contractor were held liable in negligence.
Chen Qiangshi v Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 177	Singapore	Cited as a negligence action arising from a workplace accident.
Lee Swee Chon v Kiat Seng Metals Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 22	Singapore	Cited as a negligence action arising from a workplace accident.
Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 76	Singapore	Cited for the requirement that the cause of the accident must be unknown for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Firewords Ltd and another	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 533	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the law of nuisance is available to give a remedy where an activity creates a state of affairs which gives rise to risk of escape of physically dangerous or damaging material.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty and another	Privy Council	Yes	[1967] AC 617	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that negligence is not an essential element in nuisance.
Spicer and another v Smee	England and Wales High Court	Yes	[1946] 1 All ER 489	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that liability for a nuisance may exist quite independently of negligence.
Rapier v London Tramways Co	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1893] 2 Ch. 588	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is no defence to a nuisance claim to prove that all reasonable care was taken to prevent it.
Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 116	Singapore	Cited for the principle of reasonable user in nuisance claims.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1994] 2 AC 264	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that foreseeability of damage is a prerequisite of liability in damages for nuisance.
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 importance of foreseeability of damage in private nuisance and negligence.
Bower v Peate	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	(1876) LR 1 QBD 321	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a person who orders work from which injurious consequences must be expected is bound to prevent the mischief.
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council	House of Lords	Yes	[2004] 2 AC 1	England and Wales	Cited for the requirements for the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to apply.
Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) v Liquid Advertising Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 108	Singapore	Cited as an example of the application of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Hale v Jennings Brothers	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1938] 1 All ER 579	England and Wales	Cited for the fundamental rule of the principle in Rylands v Fletcher.
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Limited	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1994) 179 CLR 520	Australia	Cited as a case where the High Court of Australia has done away with the doctrine in Rylands v Fletcher.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Fire Safety Act (Chapter 109A)	Singapore
Workplace Safety and Health Act (Chapter 354A)	Singapore
Workplace Safety and Health Act (Chapter 354A, 2009 Rev Ed) section 14A(1)	Singapore
Workplace Safety and Health Act (Chapter 354A, 2009 Rev Ed) section 14A(2)	Singapore
Workplace Safety and Health Act (Chapter 354A, 2009 Rev Ed) section 14A(3)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Chapter 97, 1997 Rev Ed) section 45A(3)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Hot works
Independent contractor
Non-delegable duty
Res ipsa loquitur
Fire safety works
Addition and alteration works
Reasonable care
Reasonable user
Foreseeability
Non-natural use of land

15.2 Keywords

Fire
Construction
Negligence
Nuisance
Rylands v Fletcher
Vicarious Liability
Singapore
High Court
Building
Property Damage

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Negligence	80
Torts	75
Private nuisance	70
Vicarious liability	65
Property Law	60
Breach of Duty	60
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher	55
Construction Torts	45
Construction Law	40

16. Subjects

Tort Law
Construction Law
Nuisance
Negligence
Vicarious Liability