Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and others [2012]
Facts
Contract stuff
Contract term state that Rango would indemnify Kimly against all claims etc incurred by
Kimly arised of Rango negligence or breach of sub contract
Rango did not have contractual rights to indemnity from TJP and they never considered
the issue of risk allocation
Rango need to show that TJP owe a duty to care to Kimly too for the damage caused
Spandeck test needed to be done for that and the first part failed
AE did not fall under people responsible under WSHA Pt IV
TJP give no case to answer so 4th parties are not involved and cannot claim from them
Crane stuff
Main reason for collapse was hard to figure out
Tower crane had 4 mast achors
Erected on 18 November 2006
Drawing submitted by Feng (4th party) to MOM and got approval and he issued cert that
the crane is structurally sound
TJP carried out 3 inspections
1st one before erection is non-destructive test on critical parts of the crane (but not
the mast achors)
2nd on site load test after erection
3rd on same as 2nd
Investigation reports hard to determine the cause of the collapse
There were pre existing cracks in the mast achors
Collapse may be caused one of the operator was unauthorised
Contract stuff
Kimly say Rango breach as there never found out the cracks
Rango say TJP breach because never check safe
Never conduct NDT on the mast anchors if not the collapse would have been
avoided
Never carry out pre-erection inspection
Kimly and Rango
Rango liable to pay Kimly
Rango and TJP (NOT FINAL)
TJP was liable for failure to detect the cracks under WSH regime
Judge say TJP liable to pay rango ( rango payment to kimly as well as cost)
For the Appeal / previous decisions
Kimly succed claim against rango
Rango succed claim against TJP
TJP claim against 4th parties was dimissed
APPEAL
Oral contract between TJP and Rango
Need to show that AE is directly liable to the main contractor for the same damage that
the sub contractor is liable for
Whether TJP owes a duty of care as an AE, no as it is not listed in the WSHA
With the spandeck test, it failed as the 1st test for proximity is that WSHA is not to
protect contractors and sub-contractors
WSHA contemplates that an AE owe no civil liability under WSH Regime
AE is an additional safety net and additional layer of protection
2) Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd and others [2014]
Facts
JPW owe a duty of care as it has overall control of the workplace and knew about the
manhole etc
Further confirmed by WSHA
Result
Mirador
This is their 1st offence
They say the tie backs were removed by another company and they have no supervisory
role on that employee
It was scarfcoat that had overall control and scarfcoat was fined $100,000
They say they are the 4th tier of responsibilty behind other company
They say a discount should be given to them
Result
Fail to act according to WSHA
For safe dismantle, they should be provided with Personal safety equipment (PPE) and
need to wear safety harness and attached fall arrester to the secured lifeline to prevent
from falling from height
The case Mirador fail to take a few reasonable steps and the accident would have been
prevented if there is a thorough and careful inspection and would have found the missing
tie backs
The deceased were told to attach harness to the scaffold frames instead of the lifeline as
the hooks were too large for the lifeline and this will protect no protection.
The above shows that the company have fallen short of its duty
The company is fined $100,000.
5) Public Prosecutor v CME Industries Pte Ltd [2009]
Facts
CME to pay $80,000 in fines and they file an appeal
Death of one worker and another seriously injured due to extension of the mast climbing
arm collapsed and they are from pointbuilt
Wee Hur > Yodai > Pointbuilt
Wee Hur > CME
CME supply and install access equipment system like the Mast climbing work platform
CME were to erect , extend and dismantle and provide training and also carry out
maintenance works
Matec
They say the warning signs were to place on the work area and not on the road and this
would not have prevented the accident from happening
The person was also the supervisor who is responsible for measures that would have
prevented the accident (look out and safety belt)
Matec had compiled with all safety features except the signboards
There were no presence of safety officer by the main contractor
Result
There are many reasonable measures that could have been put in place to prevent it ( eg
station personnel to look out)
The company had plead guilty and has good safety record.
After the accident, they erected barriers at the work site
There is no need for road closure and cannot put signs on the road unless obtain approval
from the traffic police
The scope of work only involveds 5-10 mins
Matec said that even if they have place signs it would not have prevented the accident
from happening
But Matec did admit they did not take reasonably practice to ensure safety
The court say that Matec fail to meet WSHA and failed to conduct risk assessments and
failed to provide plans to eliminate risks
Unacceptable to shift its blame to the main contractor
Fine $80,000
Regina v Davies [2003]
Fatal injuries in the UK resulted in high financial cost
New regulations is for social and economic purposes
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007]
2 stage test to determine for breach of duty of care
1) There must be proximity to establish duty of care
2) There must be no policy consideration to negate (1)
Legal proximity is the closeness of the parties relationship
R v F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999]
Penalty should reflect public disquiet at the unnecessary loss of life
Financial profit can be often made at the expense of proper action to protect employees
and the public
The sentence should reflect the degree of risk and extend of the danger created by the
offence and the extent of the breach
A fine need to be large enough to bring the message home where the defendant is a
company not only to those who manage it but also its shareholders about achieving a safe
environment
Size of a company and its financial strength or weakness cannot affect the degree of care
that is required in matters of safety