JSD Corp v Tri-Line Express: Damages for Vehicle Damage & Cost of Cure

JSD Corporation Pte Ltd appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding damages for vehicles damaged during transportation by Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, awarding outstanding repair costs for some vehicles but disallowing claims for others and for diminution in value. The court considered the principles of cost of cure and reasonableness in assessing damages for breach of contract.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court 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

Appeal regarding damages for vehicles damaged during transport. The court allowed the appeal in part, awarding outstanding repair costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
JSD Corporation Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
Tri-Line Express Pte LtdRespondent, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal dismissed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Rajan Sanjiv KumarAllen & Gledhill LLP
Mehaerun Simaa d/o Ravichandran @ Raqiib ChandraAllen & Gledhill LLP
Teo Guan TeckGuan Teck & Lim

4. Facts

  1. JSD Corporation Pte Ltd is in the business of renting, repairing, and servicing aircraft and air transport equipment.
  2. Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd is in the business of providing freight services.
  3. In October 2017, JSD Corporation and Tri-Line Express entered into an agreement for the delivery of vehicles and spare parts from Queensland, Australia to Singapore.
  4. The vehicles included a 1973 BMW, a 1976 BMW, a 1977 BMW, and a 1968 Daimler Sedan.
  5. The vehicles were delivered on 23 January 2018 but arrived damaged due to improper securing during transportation.
  6. JSD Corporation filed a counterclaim for repair costs and diminution in value of the vehicles.
  7. The District Judge allowed the counterclaim for incurred repair costs but disallowed the claim for outstanding repair costs and diminution in value.

5. Formal Citations

  1. JSD Corp Pte Ltd v Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd, District Court Appeal No 9 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 227

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Agreement entered into for transportation of vehicles and spare parts
Vehicles delivered in damaged condition
Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd sued JSD Corporation Pte Ltd for unpaid invoices
JSD Corporation Pte Ltd filed a counterclaim for damage to vehicles
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent breached an implied term in the agreement by failing to deliver the vehicles in the same good order and condition as when they were received.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to deliver vehicles in good condition
      • Failure to use reasonable care in stowing and transporting vehicles
  2. Damages Assessment
    • Outcome: The court allowed the appeal in part, awarding outstanding repair costs for some vehicles but disallowing claims for others and for diminution in value.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Cost of cure
      • Diminution in value
      • Reasonableness of repair costs
  3. Intention to Repair
    • Outcome: The court held that a party's intention to carry out outstanding repairs is a factor to be considered as part of the reasonableness test in Ruxley when claiming for such costs.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation
  • Automotive

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd v JSD Corporation Pte LtdDistrict CourtYes[2022] SGMC 16SingaporeThe District Judge's decision which was appealed against in this case.
Lo Lee Len v Grand Interior Renovation Works Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeDiscussed in relation to whether a plaintiff is entitled to the cost of repairs even if the repairs were never carried out.
Jones and another v Stroud District CouncilEnglish Court of AppealYes[1986] 1 WLR 1141EnglandDiscussed in relation to whether a plaintiff is entitled to the cost of repairs even if the repairs were never carried out.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v ForsythHouse of LordsYes[1996] AC 344EnglandCentral case regarding the objective test of reasonableness in awarding damages, particularly concerning cost of cure versus diminution in value.
Dominion Mosaics and Tile Co v Trafalgar Trucking Co Ltd and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[1990] 2 All ER 246EnglandCited regarding the assessment of damages based on market value rather than discounted purchase price.
Chia Kok Leong and another v Prosperland Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 484SingaporeDiscussed in relation to whether the intention to repair is relevant in claims by a third party who is not a party to an original contract.
Family Food Court (a firm) v Seah Boon Lock and another (trading as Boon Lock Duck and Noodle House)Court of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 272SingaporeDiscussed in relation to whether the intention to repair is relevant in claims by a third party who is not a party to an original contract.
Tito v Waddell (No 2)English Court of AppealYes[1977] Ch 106EnglandDiscussed in relation to the relevance of a party’s intention to effect the cure in a claim for such costs.
Radford v De FrobervileEnglish High CourtYes[1977] 1 WLR 1262EnglandDiscussed in relation to the relevance of a party’s intention to effect the cure in a claim for such costs.
Birse Construction Ltd v Eastern Telegraph Company LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2004] All ER (D) 92 (Nov)EnglandFollowed the reduced significance given to whether the plaintiff intends to effect the cure.
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority v Halcrow Gilbert Associates LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2007] EWHC 2456EnglandFollowed the reduced significance given to whether the plaintiff intends to effect the cure.
Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1970] 1 QB 447EnglandDiscussed in relation to whether it is unreasonable for a plaintiff to insist on repairs where the damaged property is unusable and it is simply cheaper to replace than to repair.
St Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine LtdHouse of LordsYes[1994] 1 AC 85EnglandThe rationale underlying why a plaintiff in the promisee’s position can claim for such substantial damages under the “broad ground” exception is that he did not receive what he had bargained and paid for.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166 v Chubb Singapore Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 1035SingaporeDiscussed Ruxley and the cost of cure will not be granted where it is “massively unreasonable” (ie, wholly disproportionate).
Yap Boon Keng Sonny v Pacific Prince International Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 385SingaporeEndorsing the view in Ruxley that one factor in assessing the reasonableness of a cost of cure is whether the contractual objective has been substantially achieved.
Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AGCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 559SingaporeA contractual duty of care can, but not always, give rise to an identical duty of care in tort.
Yip Holdings Pte Ltd v Asia Link Marine Industries Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 131SingaporeWhether for torts or breach of contract, the general compensatory aims dictate that the plaintiff should be put into as good a position as if its property had not been damaged.
Coles and others v Hetherton and othersEnglish Court of AppealYes[2015] 1 WLR 160EnglandWhere a chattel is damaged by the negligence of another, the measure of loss is the diminution in value that the chattel has suffered.
Koh Tiam Ting v Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte LtdDistrict CourtYes[2020] SGDC 172SingaporeRecovery for damage done to a chattel is not dependent upon repairs being done or costs of repair being paid by the plaintiff since the compensation is for loss in value, not the cost of repair as such.
Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[2007] Bus LR 726EnglandIn cases of damage caused to personal property, the test is whether it is reasonable to effect repairs, and if it is not reasonable to do so, then only the diminution in value is to be awarded.
Darbishire v WarranEnglish Court of AppealYes[1963] 1 WLR 1067EnglandIt is only economical to repair a property up to its market value.
Ng Siok Poh (administratrix of the estate of Lim Lian Chiat, deceased) and another v Sim Lian-Koru Bena JV Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 731SingaporeEven in the realm of negligent damage to land or real property (as opposed to chattels or personal property), the intention to repair or reinstate is once again relevant to the inquiry of whether those costs can be recovered.
Hole and Son (Sayers Common) Ltd v Harrisons of Thurnscoe LtdUnknownYes[1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 345EnglandThe intention to cure was relevant in assessing the reasonableness of the award regardless of the nature of the property in question.
CR Taylor (Wholesale) Ltd and others v Hepworths LtdUnknownYes[1977] 1 WLR 659EnglandThe intention to cure was relevant in assessing the reasonableness of the award regardless of the nature of the property in question.
The Maersk ColomboEnglish Court of AppealYes[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 275EnglandThe intention to reinstate is not conclusive, it is relevant to the question of reasonableness.
Masterfox Connections Pte Ltd v N & I Transportation and AnotherSingapore Magistrate CourtYes[2008] SGMC 5SingaporeA party cannot unreasonably claim for repair costs when those costs far exceed the true market value of the property.
Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu SangCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 765SingaporeThe Singapore courts retain a residual discretion to assess damages at such other date as may be appropriate.
Ho Soo Fong and another v Standard Chartered BankCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 181SingaporeThe plaintiff should not be penalised for his impecuniosity.
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert BoderickPrivy CouncilYes[2002] 1 AC 371JamaicaDamage should be based upon the cost of repair at the time that this was effected rather than upon the much lower cost prevailing at the time that the nuisance was committed.
Dodd Properties Ltd v Canterbury City CouncilUnknownYes[1980] 1 WLR 433EnglandWhere there is a material difference between the cost of repair at the date of the wrongful act and the cost of repair when the repairs can, having regard to all relevant circumstances, first reasonably be undertaken, it is the latter time by reference to which the cost of repair is to be taken in assessing damages.
Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 353SingaporeDiminution in market value can be claimed “on top of the cost of repairs” where the plaintiff has not been fully compensated by receipt of the cost of cure.
Payton v BrooksEnglish Court of AppealYes[1974] RTR 169EnglandWhere the evidence justifies a finding that there has been, on top of the cost of repairs, some diminution in market value, I can see no reason why the plaintiff should be deprived of recovery under that head of damage also.
Georgiana v AnglicanUnknownYes21 WR 280EnglandThe plaintiff was held entitled to recover, in addition to the cost of partial repairs to a yacht which did not make her as strong and seaworthy as formerly, the amount by which the yacht had diminished in value after repairs.
A*Glasstech Pte Ltd v Full-Glass Pte LtdDistrict CourtYes[2019] SGDC 75SingaporeThe court is cautious of unintentionally allowing for double recovery when a party tries to claim for both diminution in value and cost of cure.
Liberty Sky Investments Ltd v Aesthetic Medical Partners Pte Ltd and other appeals and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 606SingaporeWhere the specific facts and circumstance germane to an argument were within one party’s exclusive knowledge, then that party cannot be said to be taken by surprise.
Lim Seong Choon & Anor v R RayaratnamMalaysian High CourtYes[1990] 3 MLJ 252MalaysiaWhere the evidence is scant in relation to important points such as whether the car was new or old, or where the diminution in value is based on sheer guesswork, this would ordinarily not suffice.

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

  • Cost of cure
  • Diminution in value
  • Outstanding repair costs
  • Incurred repair costs
  • Reasonableness
  • Implied term
  • Negligent damage to chattels

15.2 Keywords

  • Contract
  • Damages
  • Transportation
  • Vehicles
  • Repair Costs
  • Diminution in Value
  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Damages80
Contract Law75
Remedies70

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Transportation Law
  • Damages