Munshi Mohammad Faiz v Interpro Construction: Vicarious Liability & Negligence in Construction Accident
In Munshi Mohammad Faiz v Interpro Construction Pte Ltd and others, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals regarding an industrial accident. Munshi Mohammad Faiz, an employee of Interpro Construction Pte Ltd, was injured by an excavator operated by Sujan Abdur Razzak Sikder. The District Court found Interpro Construction Pte Ltd and K P Builder Pte Ltd vicariously liable. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding Interpro Construction Pte Ltd and Hwa Aik Engineering Pte. Ltd. vicariously liable for Sujan's negligence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; interlocutory judgment entered against the first and third defendants for 100% of the liability arising from the accident.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding an industrial accident where Munshi Mohammad Faiz was injured by an excavator. Court addressed vicarious liability and negligence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Munshi Mohammad Faiz | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Han Hean Juan, Neo Jie Min Jamie |
| Interpro Construction Pte Ltd | Respondent, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed | Lost | Raymond Wong, Ang Xue Ying Rachel |
| K P Builder Pte Ltd | Respondent, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed | Won | Raymond Wong, Ang Xue Ying Rachel |
| Hwa Aik Engineering Pte. Ltd. | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Lost | Cephas Yee Xiang, Pang Haoyu Samuel, Ng Zhenrong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Hean Juan | Hoh Law Corporation |
| Neo Jie Min Jamie | Hoh Law Corporation |
| Raymond Wong | RWong Law Corporation |
| Ang Xue Ying Rachel | RWong Law Corporation |
| Cephas Yee Xiang | Aquinas Law Alliance LLP |
| Pang Haoyu Samuel | Aquinas Law Alliance LLP |
| Ng Zhenrong | Aquinas Law Alliance LLP |
4. Facts
- Munshi Mohammad Faiz was injured by an excavator operated by Sujan Abdur Razzak Sikder.
- K P Builder Pte Ltd was the main contractor for a construction project.
- Interpro Construction Pte Ltd was a sub-contractor engaged by K P Builder Pte Ltd.
- Hwa Aik Engineering Pte. Ltd. supplied the excavator and operator (Sujan) to K P Builder Pte Ltd.
- Santhosh instructed the plaintiff to retrieve a spade from the toolbox.
- The excavator moved and collided into the plaintiff, causing injuries.
- Sujan moved the excavator without receiving a signal to do so.
5. Formal Citations
- Munshi Mohammad Faiz v Interpro Construction Pte Ltd and others and another appeal, District Court Appeals Nos 14 and 15 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Industrial accident occurred | |
| District Court Suit No 265 of 2017 filed | |
| Closing submissions were made | |
| Hearing | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that Sujan was negligent in operating the excavator without a signal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide a safe workplace
- Failure to ensure excavator operator worked safely
- Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court held Interpro Construction Pte Ltd and Hwa Aik Engineering Pte. Ltd. vicariously liable for Sujan's negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Dual vicarious liability
- Borrowed employee
- Contributory Negligence
- Outcome: The court rejected the defense of contributory negligence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for personal injuries
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Accident
- Personal Injury
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1074 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage test to determine whether vicarious liability ought to be imposed on a defendant for the negligence of a primary tortfeasor. |
| Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and others | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2012] 3 WLR 1319 | United Kingdom | Cited for policy factors that would usually make it fair, just and reasonable for vicarious liability to be imposed in employment relationships. |
| Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1947] AC 1 | England | Cited for the pro hac vice principle, stating that the general employer of a worker is prima facie vicariously liable for the worker’s negligence. |
| 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 pro hac vice principle. |
| Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] QB 510 | England | Cited for the principle of dual vicarious liability. |
| Chen Qiangshi v. Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | (2014) SGHC 177 | Singapore | Cited as a case that accepts that imposing dual vicarious liability is permissible as a matter of law. |
| Blackwater v Plint | Canadian Supreme Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SCR 3 | Canada | Cited for the principle that there is no reason in principle that vicarious liability can only be imposed on one employer. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the rationales for imposing vicarious liability. |
| V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1422 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and the court is precluded from deciding on a matter that the parties themselves have decided not to put into issue. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Excavator
- Banksman system
- Vicarious liability
- Negligence
- Contributory negligence
- Pro hac vice
- Dual vicarious liability
- Borrowed employee
15.2 Keywords
- Construction accident
- Negligence
- Vicarious liability
- Personal injury
- Excavator
- Banksman
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Personal Injury
- Tort Law
- Vicarious Liability
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Negligence
- Contributory Negligence
- Vicarious Liability
- Construction Law