Preview

Introduction to Occupier's Liability in Singapore

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1178 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Introduction to Occupier's Liability in Singapore
Introduction to Occupier’s Liability in Singapore

Occupier’s liability refers to the liability of an occupier of premises arising from the defective conditions or unsafe activities on the premises which result in injury or damage to the plaintiff. In Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa Eng His Honour Lai Kew Chai J rightly held that “the law of occupiers’ liability in Singapore is derived from English common law”. However, statues on occupier’s liability in the England are not applicable to Singapore under the Application of English Law Act and Singapore courts mainly concern themselves with the old, pre-statue English court decisions. Two main steps are followed to establish a duty of care. First, the factual occupier has to be identified by virtue of control. Second, the type of entrant has to be identified as the standard of care depends on whether one is an invitee, a licensee or a trespasser.

Spandeck Test

The case of Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v. Defence Science & Technology Agency (Spandeck) led to the development of the Spandeck test which is a two-stage test of establishing legal proximity and considering public policies, following the fulfilment of the threshold of factual foreseeability. The Spandeck test is said to be universal and applicable to all types of harm resulting from negligence. Claims for physical injury, psychiatric injury and pure economic losses have been successfully addressed with the Spandeck test. Similarly, cases concerning occupier’s liability can be addressed by applying the Spandeck test too to determine whether the occupier has been negligent to the entrant.

Factual Foreseeability

The threshold factual test of factual foreseeability is readily met in claims of occupier’s liability as it is eminently foreseeable that entrants will suffer damage if occupiers did not take reasonable care to eliminate danger (See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others [2013] 3 SLR 284; [2013] SGCA 29

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Gng4170 Lecture Notes

    • 4235 Words
    • 17 Pages

    EXAM PREVIEW!!! – Negligence hypothetical question – Given the facts of a case, describe all relevant material covered in the notes, give legal justification and plausible decision.…

    • 4235 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bugusa Case Summary

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The tort of negligence in this scenario includes the five essential elements of negligence, duty, breach of duty, the breach being the cause of injury, proximate, and the resulting damages (Lucas, 2008). In a case of negligence the individual or company may be held liable not only with negligence but sometimes with trespass, injury, and even mental or emotional harm (Lucas, 2008). However, the law requires these elements are proven in order to recover in a law suit against a torfeasor for negligence (Melvin,…

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tasoff Case Summary

    • 450 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Reasonably foreseeable victims were brought to the forefront by cases such as Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California and subsequent duty to warn cases. Foreseeable means that a “reasonable anticipation of the possible results of an action” exists (Foreseeability. (n.d.)).…

    • 450 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    On the basis of the premise liability claim, our client has a case against the hotel. The premise liability claim is based on common law principles of negligence and derives from an establishment's lack of supervision, care, or control of the premises. RESTATMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §344 (1965). According to the premise liability claim, a tavern owner has a duty to protect his patrons, and thus be liable for negligence, if the following applies: control over a dangerous and defective condition; the owner had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the injury causing condition; and the harm suffered was a foreseeable result of that condition.…

    • 1968 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Rsm225 Assignment 2

    • 3848 Words
    • 16 Pages

    The occupier’s liability Act under [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 337 states that someone considered being occupier if one of the following requirements is met:…

    • 3848 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The public liability cases where one has met with an accident due to negligence of the government agencies…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Macgregor Case

    • 2368 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Peter booked a room for a week at Macgregor Hotel. At the reception desk, where he made the booking, was a notice limiting the hotel’s liability for loss of, damage to guest’s property.…

    • 2368 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    In this leaflet I will describe the law of negligence and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss.…

    • 2419 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Legality of Security Work

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Negligence liability arises when a person has a duty to act reasonably but fails to do so, resulting injuries. The elements of negligent liability include the existence of some duty owed or duty to protect. Employers are expected to protect their employees and the public. If an employee injures another, the employer and the company will be held liable for negligent retention since by an employer hiring a security officer, that does not relieve him from responsibility. The concept ‘respondent superior’ helps to explain that premises owners cannot delegate their responsibilities. The employer can only escape liability if he proves the existence of non-delegable duty. Otherwise, he would be fall under vicarious liability where the employer carries the burden of his employee.…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Corporate Manslaughter

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Prior to 2007, successive Governments faced continual criticism that the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter was inadequate to deal with serious tragedies (for example the Zeebrugge ferry disaster and King’s Cross fire), including those occurring in the workplace. In fact all attempts to prosecute large companies under the old law were unsuccessful.…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In a carelessness case, injuries are considered as any mischief brought on to a man, for example, a damaged bone, a scratch, or a wound and substantial harm. It likewise mentions to any breach of an individual right, such as mental enduring and false locking up. For reasons of specialists' remuneration, any damage, including a worse condition that emerges in the extent of business can be alluded to as individual injury. There is an extensive variety of circumstances that can go under this region of…

    • 516 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Torts Occupiers Liability

    • 1479 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Occupiers’ liability concerns injury caused to a plaintiff as a result of defective condition of the land, building and premises. In order to establish occupiers’ liability, the occupier must have a sufficient degree of control over the premise. Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) held that “whenever a person has a sufficient degree of control over a premises, he ought to realise any failure in his part may cause harm to a person coming lawfully there”. In order to be an occupier, it is not necessary for a person to have entire control over the premises. It suffice that he has some degree of control. Control is shown when a person has a right to allow people to come in or to stop people from come into the premises. In the landmark case of Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd, occupier was defined as someone who has immediate supervision and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons and also the person who has any degree of control over the state of premises. It is not necessary for a person to have exclusive control over his premise. By applying the test of control, it can be seen that Sykt Jebat as an owner, has a right to control people to come in or to stop people from come into his premises which is the football ground. Therefore, he is an occupier.…

    • 1479 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Negligence as law was first conceptualized in Donoghue v Stevenson1. The claimant’s case was successful against the manufacturer (defendant) of the ginger beer and went on to institute “the modern law of negligence and established the neighbor test”.2 The case is relevant as it expanded the idea that tort of negligence could arise in other situations. Lord Atkin stated what is known as his ‘neighbor speech’, where in order for the defendant to have duty of care for a claimant, “there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed, a relationship characterized by the law as one of proximity or…

    • 1268 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hall & Upson Co. – Smithwick was told not to work on a platform but was not told that the wall was about to collapse. He worked on platform despite the warning because he believed the risk of falling was the only danger. The court held that the failure to heed a warning is not contributory negligence if the injury was the result of a different source of risk caused by the defendant, and the injured party was unaware of that risk.”…

    • 3010 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Recklessness

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This essay agrees with the above statement that the current law on recklessness is far from satisfactory. In order to continue it is necessary to define recklessness and the current law on it. Recklessness is a problematic area of the criminal law, since there is no strict definition of what constitutes it. Statutes make provision for the presence of recklessness, but have yet to define it strictly, thus it falls on the hands of the judges to interpret what is meant by recklessness. It is therefore most easily delineated via case law. According to Jacqueline Martin (2010) ‘recklessness is where the defendant knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but that takes the risk’. Recklessness appears in offences ranging in gravity from manslaughter at the top end of the scale to criminal damage and a range of statutory offences at the bottom, offences involving reckless are called offences of basic intent. Judges have had to rely on “explanations in important case reports” in order to decide what amounts to recklessness.…

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays