Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SAN HAI FA
(NRIC 02948567C)
…. Appellant
And
APPELLANT’S CASE
DATE
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 10
APPELLANTS’ CASE
REFERENCE
TO JUDGMENT
A (“J”) OR
APPELLANTS’
BUNDLE OF
AUTHORITIES
(“ABA”)
I. INTRODUCTION
B
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Honourable Justice
Tan King Choo (“the learned Judge”) made on 5 February 2009.
The learned Judge dismissed the Appellant’s application to strike
out the Respondents’ claims, for (i) strict liability under the rule in
C
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330 and (ii) wrongful
death under the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43, 1999 Rev. Ed. Sing.) s. 20,
as stating no reasonable cause of action.
C
5. As such, this court should strike out the Respondents’ claim for (i)
strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher and (ii)
wrongful death under s. 20 of the Civil Law Act, as stating no
reasonable cause of action.
D
A. Background facts
C
13. Whether the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, if subsumed under private
nuisance, should consequently be subject to the same restrictions
that attend private nuisance, for instance the restriction of liability
to foreseeable damage only.
D
G
5 REFERENCE TO
JUDGMENT (“J”)
OR APPELLANTS’
BUNDLE OF
AUTHORITIES
(“ABA”)
IV. THE APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
A
A. The Respondents’ claims should have been struck out
as stating no reasonable cause of action because the rule
in Rylands v. Fletcher does not allow recovery for
personal injuries
B
1. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 MBA Tab 11
H.L. 330 [Rylands] should be abolished because
the strict liability it imposes on users of dangerous
goods conflicts with the fault-based liability under
negligence law that normally governs any use of
C dangerous goods
G ed. (United States of America: West Publishing Co., 1984)), ABA Tab 21
at 547-556
because it is incompatible with Singapore’s position that all goods
exist along a continuous spectrum of dangerousness and simply
require a proportionate exercise of care.
6 REFERENCE TO
JUDGMENT (“J”)
OR APPELLANTS’
BUNDLE OF
AUTHORITIES
(“ABA”)
A 18. In order to clarify that users of dangerous goods need only exercise
reasonable care in using those goods, and to prevent unfairness
whereby a defendant like San, who by adhering to proper storage
and usage procedures exercised reasonable care in keeping with
her layperson’s knowledge of industrial chemistry, is nevertheless
B
held strictly liable for damage caused by her socially-useful
artwork, Singapore should abolish the Rylands rule, following the
Australian and Scottish positions in Burnie Port Authority v.
ABA Tab 1 at
General Jones (1994), 179 C.L.R. 520 (H.C.A.) and R.H.M. 556
C Bakeries (Scotland) v. Strathclyde, [1985] S.L.T. 214 (H.L.
ABA Tab 7 at
(Scot.)) respectively. 217
C articulated in Transco Plc. v. Stockport, [2003] UKHL 61, [2004] MBA Tab 14
at paras. 9, 52
2 A.C. 1 [Transco] and Cambridge Water v. Eastern Counties MBA Tab 2 at
Leather (1992), [1994] 2 A.C. 264 (H.L. (Eng [Cambridge]. New 299
Zealand also followed this position in Hamilton v. Papukura
District Council, [2000] 1 N.Z.L.R. 265 (Wellington C.A). ABA Tab 5 at
D paras. 71-73
V. CONCLUSION
27. In light of the above matters, the appellant humbly request that this
F
appeal be allowed.
TAB Description
Cases
1. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones (1994), 179 C.L.R. 520 (H.C.A.) .. 7
2. Corby Group Litigation v. Corby Borough Council, [2008] EWCA Civ 463
....................................................................................................................... 9
3. Epolar System Enterprise v. Lee Hock Chuan, [2002] 4 Sing. L.R. 769
(H.C.) ............................................................................................................ 8
4. Epolar System Enterprise v. Lee Hock Chuan, [2003] 2 Sing. L.R. 198
(C.A.) ............................................................................................................ 9
5. Hamilton v. Papukura District Council, [2000] 1 N.Z.L.R. 265 (Wellington
C.A) ............................................................................................................... 8
6. Hong Guet Eng v. Wu Wai Hong, [2006] 2 Sing. L.R. 458 (H.C.) ............. 17
7. R.H.M. Bakeries (Scotland) v. Strathclyde, [1985] S.L.T. 214 (H.L. (Scot.))
....................................................................................................................... 7
8. Tan Kiam Peng v. Public Prosecutor, [2008] 1 Sing. L.R. 1 (C.A.) .......... 14
9. Teng Ah Kow v. Ho Sek Chiu, [1993] 3 Sing. L.R. 769 (C.A.)..................... 7
10. The “Sunrise Crane”, [2004] 4 Sing. L.R. 715 (C.A) .................................. 6
Statutes
11. Adoption of Children Act (Cap. 4, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) ............................ 11
12. Civil Law Act (Cap. 43, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) ............................................ 12
13. Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (W.A.) ................................................................ 17
14. Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (U.K.) ................................................................. 17
15. Intestate Succession Act (Cap. 146, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) .......................... 11
16. Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap. 354, 1998 Rev. Ed. Sing.)............... 11
Other Authorities
17. Conor Gearty, “The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts”
[1989] Cambridge L.J. 214 ......................................................................... 11
18. Donal Nolan, “The Distinctiveness of Rylands v. Fletcher” (2005) 121 Law
Q. Rev. 421 ................................................................................................... 8
19. F.H. Newark, “The Boundaries of Nuisance” (1949) 65 Law Q. Rev. 480 .. 8
20. John Murphy, “The Merits of Rylands v. Fletcher” (2004) 24 Oxford J.
Legal Stud. 643 ............................................................................................. 7
21. Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th ed. (United States of
America: West Publishing Co., 1984)........................................................... 6
22. Sing., Parliamentary Debates, vol. 85 (6 February 2009) .......................... 15