Contents

Remedies under tort................................................................................................... 3

Damages in tort (p725 to p738).............................................................................. 3
Compensatory damages...................................................................................... 3
Aggravated damages........................................................................................... 3
Exemplary or punitive damages...........................................................................3
Nominal damages................................................................................................ 4
Contemptuous damages...................................................................................... 4
Vindicatory damages............................................................................................ 5
Restitutionary damages....................................................................................... 5
Accounts of profits (p751 to p752)..........................................................................5
Injunctions (p752 to p756)...................................................................................... 5
A) Prohibitory injunctions..................................................................................... 5
B) Mandatory injunctions..................................................................................... 5
C) Quia timet injunctions...................................................................................... 6
A) Final injunctions............................................................................................... 6
B) Interim injunctions........................................................................................... 6
Damages in lieu of injunctions.............................................................................6
Vicarious liability (Whether there was the existence of an employer-employee
relationship)............................................................................................................... 6
Control test (method of working, hours of work).....................................................6
Integration test........................................................................................................ 7
Personal investment in enterprise test....................................................................7
Intention.................................................................................................................. 7
Whether employee committed tort in the course of employment..............................7
Salmonds test........................................................................................................ 7
Lister Close-connection test (for unauthorized modes of carrying out the
employers authorized act supersedes (b) ).......................................................8
Policy considerations............................................................................................... 8
Special Scenarios....................................................................................................... 9
Detour..................................................................................................................... 9
Travelling to perform work....................................................................................... 9
Employees fraud.................................................................................................... 9
Entrustment of a thing to employee........................................................................9
1 | Page

Negligent performance at work............................................................................... 9

Acting contrary to employers instructions............................................................10
Employees personal vengeance or retaliation......................................................10
Breach of non-delegable duties................................................................................10
General rule Employers are not liable for the torts committed by an independent
contractor................................................................................................................. 11
o

Non-delegable duties...................................................................................11

Extra-hazardous acts................................................................................... 11

Employers claims against employee for indemnity Lister v Romford Ice and Cold
Storage Co Ltd (1957).............................................................................................. 12
Contingent liability................................................................................................... 13
Limitation Act........................................................................................................... 13
Knowledge............................................................................................................. 13
Overriding time limit s 24B.............................................................................. 14
Action based on fraud s 29 Postponement of limitation period.....................14
Tortious actions for account of profits s 6(2)....................................................14
Disability of plaintiff s 24 (1) (c)......................................................................14
Latches limitation periods in respect of equitable damages and injunctions in
tort actions......................................................................................................... 14

2 | Page

Remedies under tort

Three main types

Award of damages
Accounts of profits
Injunctions
Declarations (less common)

Damages in tort (p725 to p738)

Compensatory damages

The sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has
suffered, in the same position as how would have been in if he had not
sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or
reparation - Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880)

Aggravated damages

May be awarded for the additional injury suffered by the plaintiff arising from
the manner and motives of the defendants commission of the tort or his
subsequent conduct
General rule is that companies cannot be awarded aggravated damages
because they are not capable of feelings and metal distress
To compensate the victim, not to punish the wrongdoer
For defamation, trespass to person, trespass to land, malicious falsehood,
malicious prosecution and deceit
Award is for the additional injury to feelings and mental distress caused to the
plaintiff
o There was exceptional or contumelious (scornful and insulting)
conduct or motive on the part of the defendant in committing the
wrong - Tan Harry v Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius (2004)
o In a case of non-consensual dental treatment, aggravated damages
was awarded for the distress of the plaintiffs who realized that the
defendant dentist had deliberately concealed the true facts from them
concerning the unnecessary dental treatment Appleton v Garrett
(1996)
o Fails to make an apology, persists in prolonged cross-examination of
the plaintiff, continues to commit the tort
o In a case on battery and harassment, aggravated damages was
awarded for the additional anger and annoyance caused by the
defendant for persistently denying the allegations such that the
claimant was forced to relive her negative experience during the court
and disciplinary proceedings KD v Chief Constable of Hampshire
(2005)
The Singapore court in Tan Harry v Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius (2004) left open
the question whether aggravated damages ought to be allowed in negligence

3 | Page

Exemplary or punitive damages

Rationale: Deterrence
(Method 1) Rookes v Barnard (1964) where exemplary or punitive damages
apply
o (1) Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of
the government
o (2) The defendants conduct has been calculated by him to make a
profit for himself which exceeds the compensation payable
E.g. Publishers that calculated that publishing the libel would
generate more profits than the compensatory damages payable
Extended to case where the defendant was seeking to gain at
the expense of the plaintiff some object Lord Devlin in Rookes
v Barnard (1964)
There were harassing tactics used by the landlord, a state of
mind must be present. Darnes v Evangelous (1978)
o Applied in Singapore in Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd v Da
Zhong Investment Pte Ltd (2004)
Judicial considerations in awarding exemplary damages
o (1) Plaintiff had to be a victim (purpose is not to supply the plaintiff
with a windfall
o (2) Quantum should be moderate and not amount to a greater
punishment than in the case of criminal conduct
o (3) The means of the parties
Other considerations
o No exemplary damages if the defendant had been convicted of a
criminal offence
o Exemplary damages may be refused or reduced if the claimants
conduct provoked the defendants offensive behavior.
Exemplary damages in negligence
o (Method 1 UK approach) In A v Bottrill (2002), a negligent misread of
the cervical smears failed to detect cancer, resulting in more extensive
treatment. The court held that exemplary damages might be awarded
as long as the defendants conduct was outrageous, regardless of
whether the defendant was subjectively reckless.
o (Method 2 New Zealand)The NZSC case of Couch v The AttorneyGeneral (2010) departed from A v Bottrill (2002). The purpose of
exemplary damages was to punish the defendant. Thus, the state of
mind on the part of the defendant was relevant in determining whether
an award of exemplary damages should be made. (Subjective
recklessness)
o In the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of McIntyre v Grigg (2006),
exemplary damages were recoverable if the negligent conduct was
intentional and deliberate.

Nominal damages

(1) Where the plaintiff rights have been infringed by the defendants tortious
conduct, but the plaintiff suffers no loss.
4 | Page

(2) Alternatively, there may be a loss but if the plaintiff is not able to adduce
sufficient evidence to prove the loss.
Objective: Vindicate the legal rights of the plaintiff rather than compensating
the plaintiff
The plaintiffs chance of winning prize money that the plaintiff had lost by
reason of the defendants intervention in injecting the plaintiffs horse with
steroids was speculative rather than real chance due to the existing weak
condition of the horse. The plaintiff did not suffer any real loss by reason of
the defendants action Wang Sam Lin v Burridge Steven Harold (2009)

Contemptuous damages

Where the plaintiff has proven his case in court, but his conduct in bringing
the action was abhorrent or the claim was frivolous, the court may award
contemptuous or derisory damages to show contempt for the plaintiffs
conduct or claim.
Husband brought an action against the defendant for inducing his wife to
desert him.
Defamation action by footballer against the newspaper. Plaintiffs action
brought disrepute to the game. Footballer had to pay two-thirds of the
newspapers legal costs.

Vindicatory damages

Allows the aggrieved to vindicate his legal rights

the fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra
dimension to the wrong AG of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop (2006)

Restitutionary damages

Target the gains, not the losses

Different from account of profits (common law VS equity)
o Court order for account of profits (the means)
Damages are accessed according to the gains made by the tortfeasor rather
than the loss suffered by the plaintiff
In a trespass to land case, a person entitled to possession of land was entitled
to claim for the value of the benefit which the defendants had received from
the use of the land Ministry of Defence v Ashman (1993)

Accounts of profits (p751 to p752)

Defendant is required to provide an account of and pay the amount of profits it has
obtained by the tort he has committed. Focus is on the gains acquired by the
tortfeasor.
Rationale: Prevent an unjust enrichment by requiring the defendant to give up the
profits acquired.
For breaches of intellectual property rights. E.g. Gains to the defendant because the
public was confused that that his goods are legitimate.

5 | Page

The defendants knowledge of the infringement is important in determining the

availability of the remedy Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd

Injunctions (p752 to p756)

Rationale

(1) To restrain the defendant from committing or repeating the tort

(2) To remove the effects of the tort that has been committed

A) Prohibitory injunctions acts negatively against a tortfeasor to restrain him from

repeating the tort in the future.

E.g. Defamation, passing off, trespass to land, nuisance and harassment

May be granted with specific restrictions such as the reduction in frequency
of the impugned activity or the injunction may be suspended for a specified
period
Public interests VS Private interests of the plaintiff

B) Mandatory injunctions directs that the tortfeasor carries out a positive act to
put an end to a state of affairs resulting from his tort.

E.g. To require the defendant to remove what he had planted on the

claimants land, to remove advertising signs, to demolish buildings which
obstructed the plaintiff
No granted if it would cause undue hardship to the defendant
Burden of performance on defendant VS benefit that may accrue to plaintiff

C) Quia timet injunctions are issued to prevent a tort that has yet to be
committed.

Plaintiff would have to show the existence of a threatened commission of the

tort and imminent damage.

A) Final injunctions are granted at the trial of the action or at a hearing where the
final judgment is made.

B) Interim injunctions are grated before the trial. It is temporary in nature and
intended to last until the trail of the action.
Requirements American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (1975)

(1) There was a serious question to be tried. Not necessary to establish a

prima facie case
(2) Plaintiff had to show that the balance of convenience favored ordering the
interim injunction

Requirements - Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke (1996)

(1) Would not be granted if damages would adequately compensate the

plaintiff for the interim loss and the defendant could pay the amount

6 | Page

(2) Whether the damages payable under the plaintiffs undertaking would be
sufficient to compensate the defendant for the interim loss and whether the
plaintiff could pay them
(3) Balance of convenience. Whether it would cause greater hardship to grant
or refuse the injunction, and two other factors are applied as a last resort. (a)
the desirability of maintaining the status quo (b) the strength of one partys
case being disproportionate to the other.

2 Forms of interim injunctions

(1) Anton Piller order Requires the defendant to permit the plaintiff to
search the formers premises for property or documents that are relevant to
the claim
(2) Mareva injunction Prohibits the defendant from disposing of his assets
whether abroad or within the jurisdiction

Damages in lieu of injunctions may be awarded where the injury to legal rights is
small, can be estimated in money, can be adequately compensated by a small
money payment, and where it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant the
injection.

Vicarious liability (Whether there was the existence of an

employer-employee relationship)
Control test (method of working, hours of work)

Contract for services/ contract of services

Hourly basis/ freelance basis
Denning LJ observed that in many cases, employers do not have sufficient
knowledge to control the way work is done by the employees (in this case,
medical staff) Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951)
Specialized skills
Hirer did not have control over the manner in which the driver operated the
crane Mersey Docks and Harbor Board v Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool)
Limited (1947)
Hirers had control and direction over the operations of the stevedoring
workers in discharging cargo from the vessel Asia Beni Steel Industries Pte
Ltd v Chua Chuan Leong Contractors Pte Ltd (1996)
Both have a general responsibility to select their personnel with care and to
encourage and control the careful execution of their employees duties Rix
LJ in Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd (2006)

Integration test

The test depends on whether the person is part and parcel of the
organization Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford (1953)
Provided equipment and paraphernalia for the car-parking service
The jockey donned shirts imprinted with the nightclubs name Chua Chye
Leong Alan v Grand Palace De-luxe Nite Club Pte Ltd (1993)
7 | Page

Rix LJ intimated that the answer would also depend on whether the employee
was so much part of the work, business or organization of both employers
in order that it was just in rendering both employers liable integration test
+ justice - Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd (2006)

Personal investment in enterprise test

Wilson and Dawson JJ in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) said
that the ultimate question will always be whether a person is acting as the
servant of another or on his own behalf
Provides own equipment
Hires his own helpers
Degree of financial risk taken
Degree of responsibility for investment and management he has
Whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound
management in the performance of his task

Intention

Designation of self-employed
Classify as self-employed for tax advantages
Food and other expenses

Whether employee committed tort in the course of

employment
Frolic on his own

Salmonds test

(a) a wrongful act authorised by the master; or

o Vicarious liability on the part of the police force for a policemans
negligent act in attempting to unload his revolver in a public place
after having too much to drink Koh Get Kee v Low Beng Hai (1994)
(b) a wrongful and unauthorized mode of carrying out an act authorised by
the master
o Employee deliberately collided into a concrete mixer while driving a
bus owned by his employer, employer not vicariously liable Hup Bus
Service v Tay Chwee Hiang (2006)
o Bus conductor was not expressly or impliedly authorised to assault a
passenger in the course of carrying out work (keeping order among the
passengers) which he was employed to do Keppel Bus Co Ltd v Saad
bin Ahmad (1971-1973)

Lister Close-connection test (for unauthorized modes of carrying out

the employers authorized act supersedes (b) )

Salmond: Provided that they are so connected with acts which he has
authorized that they may be regarded as modes, although improper modes,
of doing them.

8 | Page

The connection between the position of the warden and his close contact with
the pupils through his work and the acts of abuse satisfied the closeconnection test Lord Clyde
Assaults were committed by the employee to whom the employers had
entrusted the care of the children Lord Millett
There were inherent risk of sexual abuse in the nature of the business Lord
Millett in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2002)
The employee had staged and/ or concocted the accident in order to mount
false claims for financial profits. As the act was so unconnected with the
authorized act (ie, to convey passengers from one pick-up point to another),
it should be construed as being an independent act, outside of his scope of
employment Tay Chwee Hiang v Poh Tian Pow (2005)
o Appears similar to the close-connection test though the Lister case was
not explicitly mentioned.
Zouks security personnel were authorised to eject the plaintiff from the
premises.
o Furthermore, the acts of assault were clearly connected with the
ejection which the security personnel was authorised to carry out
Joseph Poskey Patrick v Zouk Management (2003)
o Appears similar to the close-connection test though the Lister case was
not explicitly mentioned.
Test in Bazley v Curry (1999) is subtly different from Lister
o Significant connection between the creation or enhancement of a risk
and the wrong that accrues therefrom, even if unrelated to the
employers desires

Policy considerations

Bazley v Curry (1999)

o The opportunity afforded by the employers enterprise for the
employee to abuse his power
o The extent to which the wrongful act furthered the employers interests
o The extent to which the employment situation created intimacy or
other conditions conducive to the wrongful act
o The extent of power conferred on the employee in relation to the
victim
o The vulnerability of potential victims
E.g. night club owner encouraging bouncer to act in an aggressive and
intimidatory manner when performing his duties seemed to be enhancing the
risks of assault Mattis v Pollock (2003)

Special Scenarios
Detour

Employee driver made a detour at the request of the defendants passengers.

House of lords held that he was undertaking his employers business and the
employer was therefore vicariously liable A&W Hemphill Ltd v Williams
(1966)
9 | Page

Lorry driver stopped en route for refreshment, a practice which the company
was aware of, but was not regarded as performing his employers duties until
he returned to the lorry and resumed his journey Crook v Derbyshire Stone
Ltd (1956)

Travelling to perform work

An employee who was required and paid by the employer to travel and who
injured the plaintiff during the return journey was regarded as having
committed the tort in the course of employment.
o Distinction between the duty to turn up for work and the notion of
already being on duty while travelling to it
o Smith v Stages (1989)
Chauffeur met with accident while riding his motorcycle to the directors
house
o That the chauffeur own a motorcycle was not a term of the contract
o Company did not pay for the motorcycles upkeep
o QBE insurance (International) Ltd v Julaiha Bee Bee (1991)

Employees fraud

Employer vicariously liable for employees fraud of inducing the client to

make unauthorized transfer of cottages and mortgages to the employee
himself even when the employee acted for his own benefit
o Principle is subject to the clients knowledge of the absence of
authorization of the employee
o Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co (1912)

Entrustment of a thing to employee

Where an item owned by the customer is entrusted to the defendant was

stolen by one of the defendants employees, the defendant was held to be
vicariously liable for the loss of the item based on the close connection test.
o Employee was employed to fumigate the container and its contents at
a compound.
o Brinks Global Services Inc v Igrox Limited (2010)

Negligent performance at work

Driver of an oil tanker negligently lit a cigarette and threw the burning match
on the floor, whilst the petrol was being transferred into a tank at a garage.
The match resulted in a fire, consequently, property damage.
Held that driver was carrying out his job to deliver petrol, but did it in a
negligent manner.
Employee was regarded as acting in the course of employment and the
employer was vicariously liable
Century Insurance Company, Limited v Northern Ireland Road transport Board
(1942)

10 | P a g e

Acting contrary to employers instructions

Employer was vicariously liable even when employer has expressly prohibited
the employee, in the course of performing his task of collecting milk bottles,
from enlisting the help of young persons.
o Because the prohibition related only to the mode of performance by
the employee and did not define or limit the scope of his employment.
The injury occurred whist the employee was carrying out his job. (mode
but not scope)
o Public policy consideration: It was the employer who placed his trust
and confidence in the employee
Therefore, the employer should bear the loss as compared to the
plaintiff who acted in ignorance of the prohibition
However, if the plaintiff knew of the prohibition and had the
chance to avoid the danger of injury from the prohibited act, he
should not be entitled to hold the employer liable - Scarman LJ
o Rose v Plenty (1976)
Employer was vicariously liable for collision caused by employee bus driver
obstructing other buses even when employee was expressly forbidden from
obstructing other buses from rival companies.
o the decisive point was that it was not done by the servant for his own
purposes, but for his masters purposes - Lord Denning MR
o Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1892)

Employees personal vengeance or retaliation

Vicariously liable if a connection can be drawn between the act of personal

vengeance or retaliation and the scope of employment
Policeman fired shots at lover, injuring plaintiff in the process
o The government was adjudged not to be vicariously liable AG of the
British Virgin Islands v Hartwell (2004)
Bouncers assault on plaintiff was motivated by revenge on the humiliation
the bouncer had earlier suffered at a nightclub.
o The bouncer was employer to keep order and discipline, and was
expected to used violence in carrying out his duties
o Was encouraged to perform his duties in an aggressive and
intimidating manner
o The act of violence therefore fall within the scope of his employment

Breach of non-delegable duties

It is no defence for the employer to show that he delegated its performance

to a personDespite such delegation the employer is liable for the nonperformance of the duty McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd
o The principle of non-delegable duty was applied by the Singapore
Court of Appeal in The Lotus M (1998)
Non-delegable duty, unlike vicarious liability, is not constrained by the
requirement of the employee acting in the course of employment.

11 | P a g e

Non-delegable duties are direct personal duties of the employer whilst

vicarious liability is indirect or secondary.
o A finding of vicarious liability may not denote any fault on the part of
the employer whilst a breach of non-delegable duties necessarily
means the employer is at fault.
The duty of employers to provide a safe system of work is a non-delegable
duty. The employer cannot absolve liability for failure to ensure a safe system
of work on the ground that he has delegated that performance to another
person.
o Schools and hospitals owe non-delegable duties to pupils and patients
respectively, who are under their care and supervision.
If an employee in that system should carry out his task negligently and as a
result a third party or a co-employee is injured, the employer would be liable
to the injured employee under the principle of vicarious liability Lu Bang
Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd (2009)
o

General rule Employers are not liable for the torts

committed by an independent contractor

(1) The defendant is able to prove that he exercised reasonable care and skill
in engaging the independent contractor.
o The manufactured tool was sold to the employer via a reputable firm of
suppliers. Hence, the employer was not liable Davie v New Merton
Board Mills Ltd (1959)
o E.g. if the employer did not ascertain if the independent contractor was
sufficiently competent for the task at hand
(2) A principal will not be liable for a collateral or casual act of negligence on
the part of its agent
o The tortious act in question is a collateral or casual act of negligence
o If the independent contractor failed to discover a patent defect in the
lamp and that caused the customer injury, the employer would be
liable
o If the independent contractor had negligently dropped a hammer on
the head of the customer, the employer would not be liable.
Exceptions
o Non-delegable duties of an employer for the safety of his employees
It was held that a non-delegable duty was owed by the owner of
a building to ensure that its independent contractor carrying out
welding activities works took reasonable care to prevent an
insulating material from being set alight as a result of the
welding activities.
The non-delegable duty was premised on the central element
of control exercised by the person under the duty and the
special dependence or vulnerability on the part of the person to
whom the duty is owned.
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994)
12 | P a g e

1) Substantial risks to the class of persons to which the plaintiff

belongs
2) The defendant assumed a positive responsibility to protect
the claimant from harm
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery (2007)

Extra-hazardous acts
To take a photograph in the cinema with a flashlight was a
dangerous operation in its intrinsic nature Honeywill and
Stein, Limited v Larkin Brothers (1934)
The task of felling a tree by the independent contractor would
not, if done with ordinary elementary caution by skilled men,
have presented any hazard to anyone at all. Hence, the occupier
of the house was not liable to the injured plaintiff arising from
the negligent work of the independent contractor. Therefore,
felling in the circumstances was not an extra-hazardous
activity Salsbury v Woodland (1970)
A statutory duty which the employer cannot delegate
Withdrawal of support from neighboring land
Escape of substances such as explosives which have been brought to
the land and which are likely to do damage if they escape under the
rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

o
o
o

Employers claims against employee for indemnity

Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd (1957)

Employee negligently drove a lorry and injured his father who was also
employed by the plaintiff company. The injured father recovered damages
against the company in respect of the sons negligence.
Plaintiff Company claimed against the son for an indemnity and succeeded.
There was an implied term in his contract of service that he would use
reasonable skill and care in driving.
In Singapore, a legal assistant was found liable to indemnify his employer on
the ground of a breach of an implied term of his contract of employment that
he would exercise reasonable skill and knowledge, care and diligence Lee
Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd (1992)
In Harvey v R G ODell Ltd (1958), the employee was employed as a
storekeeper, not as a driver. Hence, there was no implied term in the
employment contract that he would indemnify the employers against liability
from his negligent driving.

13 | P a g e

Contingent liability
Contingent liability capable of monetary assessment is sufficient to constitute actual
damage
Peoples Parkway Development Pte Ltd v Akitek Tenggara (1992)
Forster v Outred & Co [1982] - damage was suffered as soon as the claimant
signed a mortgage deed, not when the creditor sought to enforce the
security.
SG HC held that the loss had to be an actual loss rather than a potential or
prospective loss.

Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Emmanuel & Barker [1998] Chao KI a good test to
determine whether a cause of action in tort has accrued is to ask whether a
plaintiff would have succeeded if he had sued any time after the occurrence
of the negligent act complained of.
Wadley Australia v State of Western Australia AUS HC held that no loss or
damage had accrued arising from an indemnity executed by the respondent
in favour of a bank in reliance upon the appellants misleading or deceptive
conduct as the liability under the indemnity was merely contingent.

Limitation Act
Cat A: Where damages claimed involved personal injuries 3 years Limitation
Act, s24A (2)
Where death is involved 3 years Civil Law Act, s20 (1) & s20 (5)
Cat B: For other claims 3 or 6 years Limitation Act, s24A (3)
Negligence, nuisance or breach or duty in s24A applies to a claim for personal
injuries in trespass to the person A v Hoare (2008)

Knowledge

Includes constructive knowledge Focus is on whether the person has taken

reasonable steps to acquire or obtain the requisite knowledge.
The defendant would attempt to show that it was unreasonable for the
plaintiff not to have taken steps to seek the advice e.g. appropriate expert
advice

In a developers claim against architects for defective works, the developers

knowledge of an isolated incident of a wall tile becoming de-bonded in1997 would
not trigger the time to run. However, the developers discovery of a few tiles which
became de-bonded in 1999 was sufficient to constitute the relevant knowledge
Chia Kok Leong v Prosperland Pte Ltd

2 requirements for knowledge under s 24A (3) (b) in Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah
Foong (2008)

(1) Knew or ought to have known of the factual essence of his complaint
14 | P a g e

(2) Under s 24A (4)(d) , the appellant possessed knowledge of material facts
about the injury or damage which would lead a reasonable person who had
suffered such injury or damage to consider it sufficiently serious to justify
his instituting proceedings.
o The requirement of sufficient seriousness was fulfilled as the
appellant was actually being sued by the contractor.
There are also other requirements under s 24A (4)
To discharge his burden with respect to the requisite knowledge, all the
claimant needed to show was that at least one of the elements of knowledge
stated in 24A (4) (or s 14A (6) of the UK limitation act) of the act was absent
Haward v Fawcetts (2006)

Overriding time limit s 24B

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), starting date means the date (or, if more
than one, from the last of the dates) on which there occurred any act or omission
(a) which is alleged to constitute negligence, nuisance or breach of duty; and
(b) to which the injury or damage in respect of which damages are claimed is
alleged to be attributable (in whole or in part).

The knowledge of the parties is irrelevant in such an instance. The 15 year

period will apply notwithstanding that the cause of action has not yet
accrued. Section 24B (3).

Action based on fraud s 29 Postponement of limitation period

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered
the fraud or the mistake, as the case may be, or could with reasonable
diligence have discovered it s 29 (1)(c)

Tortious actions for account of profits s 6(2)

An action for an account of profits, whether based on tort or otherwise, shall

not be brought in respect of any matter which arose more than 6 years before
the commencement of the action.

Disability of plaintiff s 24 (1) (c)

Time runs from the date when the person ceased to be under a disability or
died, whichever even occurred first, notwithstanding that the period of
limitation has expired.

Latches limitation periods in respect of equitable damages and

injunctions in tort actions

Latches may bar a claim even before the statutory limitation period has
expired.
The doctrine of laches refers to the power of the court to dismiss a claim if
there has been a delay and the delay has caused prejudice or injustice to the
defendant.

15 | P a g e

Section 6(7) of the Limitation Act provides that the limitation period specified
in s 6 is applicable to injunctions and equitable remedies. Further, the
provisions in s 24A (3), namely, category (b) claims, should be applicable to
claims for equitable damages and injunctions in actions for negligence,
nuisance or breach of duty.

16 | P a g e