(2014) SGHC 109

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the
court and/or redaction pursuant to the publishers duty in compliance

with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law
Reports.
Hotel Royal @ Queens Pte Ltd

trading as Hotel Royal @ Queens
v
J M Pang & Seah (Pte) Ltd
[2014] SGHC 109
High Court Suit No 248 of 2012
Tan Siong Thye JC
2124, 28 January; 6 March 2014
Tort Negligence
Contract Breach
2 June 2014
Judgment reserved.
Tan Siong Thye JC:

Introduction
1
On 19 December 2009, a flashover incident occurred in the High
Tension Switch Gear Room (HTSGR) on the Plaintiffs premises at the

Queen Wing of 12 Queen Street, Singapore (the Premises). The Plaintiff
seeks to recover from the Defendant, the Plaintiffs Licensed Electrical
Worker (LEW), the losses and damages it alleges to have suffered as a result
of the flashover incident. The trial was bifurcated and the only issue to be
dealt with in this trial is that of liability. This requires an assessment of
whether the Defendant had owed the Plaintiff a contractual and tortious duty
of care. If the answer is yes, I must ascertain whether there is a breach of this
Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

as Hotel Royal @ Queens v J M Pang & Seah Pte Ltd
[2014] SGHC 109
duty. Thereafter I have to determine if there is any contributory negligence on

the Plaintiffs part which will serve to mitigate the liability of the Defendant
such that the Defendant is only liable for a portion of the losses and damages
suffered by the Plaintiff.
The facts
The Plaintiff
2
The Plaintiff is a company that operates a hotel business at the
Premises. The Plaintiff bought the Premises in 2004 when it was known as
Allson Hotel and renamed it Hotel Royal @ Queens. Allson Hotel
continued to run its own hotel business in the adjacent Victoria Wing located
at the same address, 12 Queen Street, Singapore.
The Defendant
3
The Defendant is a company that is in the business of carrying out
project management and engineering consultancy services. The general scope

of services provided by the Defendant includes, but is not limited to:
(a)
the provision of consultancy services in respect of high/low
voltage electrical installations;

(b)
services for the purposes of obtaining licences from the Energy
Market Authority (EMA);

(c)
inspection and maintenance services; and
(d)
testing and measurement services for electrical installations.

[2014] SGHC 109
The Defendant has been the LEW for the previous owners of the
Premises since 1986. The Defendant continued as the Plaintiffs LEW for the
Premises after the Plaintiff bought over the premises in 2004.
The Agreement
5
Although the agreement was only entered into on 29 January 2007, it is
not disputed by both parties that the Defendant had been acting as the
Plaintiffs LEW since the Plaintiff bought over the Premises in 2004. This is
despite there being no formal written agreement. Nonetheless, the agreement
laid down the scope of the Defendants duties as an LEW. For the services, the
Plaintiff was required to pay the Defendant a monthly retaining fee of $150
(inclusive of GST).
6
As the scene of the flashover incident is the HTSGR, it is necessary to
explain the apposite electrical equipment sited in the HTSGR on the Premises
and the various types of servicing regimes required for these equipment.
The HTSGR
7
At all material times, there were four switchgears in the HTSGR.
Three switchgears were high tension transformer feeder switchgears

(HTTFS) and the other was the main power grid incoming switchgear. Two
HTTFS provided electricity and power to the Premises. The other HTTFS
provided electricity and power to the Victoria Wing (the third HTTFS). All
the equipment in the HTSGR had not been changed since the Premises was
constructed in 1983. All four switchgears were being utilised when the
Plaintiff took over the Premises in 2004. The Plaintiff allowed Allson Hotel,
which still occupied the Victoria Wing, to continue drawing electricity and

[2014] SGHC 109
power from the third HTTFS. The Plaintiff itself made use of the other
HTTFS.
8
On 28 January 2005, Allson Hotel managed to secure another source of
electricity and power. Thereafter, on 31 January 2005, the third HTTFS which
Allson Hotel drew electricity and power from in the HTSGR was switched off
and racked out as it was no longer utilised by Allson Hotel. The third HTTFS
was left in the HTSGR as a spare HTTFS.
The maintenance of the HTSGR
General overview
9
The Defendant, as the Plaintiffs LEW, conducted bimonthly
inspections on the equipment in the HTSGR in accordance with the

agreement. These inspections are of a purely visual and sensory nature. This
involves the external reading of measurements of gauges, instruments and
control panels mounted on the exterior of the electrical equipment and do not
require any internal inspection of the interior components of the electrical
equipment. For internal inspection, a proper and complete shutdown of the
electricity supply is required. This is for safety purposes. Such a shutdown
maintenance (SM) may only be done with the consent of the Plaintiff as a
separate contract of services is required.
Shutdown maintenance
10
A SM is the most comprehensive and effective form of maintenance
and servicing regime since it entails, inter alia, the cleaning and checking of
the interior components of the HTTFS, testing on the relays and high-potential
testing of the HTTFS. A SM allows for internal examination and maintenance

[2014] SGHC 109
work to be done. The LEW will be able to detect any defects in the HTTFS
which can then be rectified immediately. However, the carrying out of a SM
will be disruptive to the Plaintiffs business operations as it will require the
electricity and power supply to the Premises to be shut down for a period of
three to four hours. The last SM conducted for the HTSGR was done by the
Defendant on 14 December 2004.
Partial discharge measurement testing
11
Partial
Discharge
Measurement
(PDM)
testing
is
not
as
comprehensive as a SM. A PDM testing is a limited and less comprehensive

form of testing of the HTTFS since it is only a measurement of the insulation
health of the HTTFS by continuous mode, on-line and non-intrusive
measurement. A PDM testing would only measure one aspect of the
functionality of the HTTFS, ie. the insulation health. It would not
comprehensively identify any other problems within the said electrical
equipment. However, a PDM testing does not require a shutdown of the
electricity and thus the power supply to the Premises is not affected. Hence a
PDM testing does not disrupt the Plaintiffs business operations.
Cost of shutdown maintenance and partial discharge measurement
12
Although the Defendant performed the bimonthly inspections as part
of its obligations under the agreement, any SM or PDM testing conducted was
premised on a separate agreement. The Defendant would recommend a SM or
a PDM testing and provide the Plaintiff a quotation for any such service
performed by the Defendant. This would be subject to the Plaintiffs consent.
If the Plaintiff did not agree, the Defendant would not conduct any such
recommended service. A SM is also considerably more expensive than a PDM

[2014] SGHC 109
testing. A PDM testing costs the Plaintiff around $3,000 whereas a SM costs
the Plaintiff somewhere around $7,000 to $8,000.
The flashover incident
13
The flashover incident occurred on 19 December 2009 at the Plaintiffs
HTSGR. The source of the flashover was identified to be the third HTTFS.
The third HTTFS is a Yorkshire YSF6 model switchgear. It consists of three
fixed rod contacts at the top and three fixed rod contacts at the bottom of the
spare panel for connection to a circuit breaker. Each fixed rod contact is partly
insulated from the environment by a plastic conical attachment known as a
spout insulator. The fixed rod contacts at the top were connected to the cables
that linked to a transformer whereas the fixed rod contacts at the bottom were
connected to the busbars of the entire switchgear assembly. These fixed rod
contacts were located in a busbar chamber. A busbar is an electrical conductor,
maintained at a specific voltage and capable of carrying a high current, usually
to make a common connection between several circuits in a system.
The vulnerability of the third HTTFS
14
After Allson Hotel stopped utilising the third HTTFS, it was made a
spare switchgear. The fixed rod contacts at the top were no longer energised,
ie, connected to a live power source, whereas the fixed rod contacts at the
bottom remained energised. Furthermore, the circuit breaker of the switch gear
was in the rack-out position as compared to the rack-in position it was in
previously when being utilised. When the circuit breaker is in the rack-in
position, the circuit breaker compartment is more or less closed to the external
environment. This prevents the ingress of dust particles into the circuit breaker
compartment. However, when it is in the rack-out position, the circuit breaker

[2014] SGHC 109
compartment will be exposed to the external environment due to the presence

of air gaps between the circuit breaker truck and the switchgear enclosure.
15
More specifically, gaps at the busbar shutters allowed the ingress of
dust particles into the space behind the shutters, and the dust particles settled
on the surface of the spout insulators behind these shutters. Therefore, after
Allson Hotel stopped utilising the third HTTFS on 31 January 2005, the spout
insulators of the third HTTFS became progressively contaminated by dust
particles from the environment. This was due to the air gaps present between
the rack-out circuit breaker trolley and the switchgear enclosure. The dust
particles absorbed moisture from the atmosphere. The combination of dust
particles and moisture led to the phenomenon of tracking on the surface of the
spout insulators in the presence of electric field stress created as the fixed rod
contacts at the bottom remained energised.
Tracking Loss of insulation
16
Tracking is the result of a permanent conducting path, usually carbon,
being formed across the surface of insulation. This phenomenon is caused by

the degradation due to continuous discharges and erosion. In this case, the
surfaces of the spout insulator were progressively contaminated by dust and
other particles. The moisture absorbed from the atmosphere as a result of a
humid environment and the contaminants provided a continuous, conducting
path between the high voltage electrode, the energised fixed rod contacts at the
bottom, and the ground. The surface resistance of the spout insulators also
decreased considerably in the presence of contaminants and moisture.
Therefore, there was a complete breakdown of the insulation surface. A
conducting path propagated to the extent that the remaining insulation was
incapable of withstanding the system voltage. This surface tracking then
7

[2014] SGHC 109
caused an electrical fault within the switchgear. It is this electrical fault that
gave rise to the flashover incident.
SM could have prevented the flashover incident
17
The parties agree that a SM conducted on the third HTTFS would have
allowed for the Defendant to discover the accumulation of contaminants on

the surface of the spout insulators. A SM is necessary because the spout
insulators are behind the busbar shutter and, for safety purposes, the busbar
shutter can only be lifted to inspect the spout insulators behind when the
electricity supply is cut off during a SM. Therefore, both parties agree that if a
SM had been conducted, the appropriate remedial measures could have been
taken to avoid the surface tracking that caused the flashover incident.
Damages caused by the flashover incident
18
The flashover itself caused damage to the third HTTFS. It also caused
an overall power failure for the entire Premises. The Premises was without
power for more than a day and guests of the Plaintiff had to be relocated to a
sister hotel. Subsequently, the Plaintiff brought this suit against the Defendant
and claimed for the loss that arose as a result of the flashover incident. The
Plaintiffs claim is premised on the fact that the Defendant had failed to
properly advise the Plaintiff as to the maintenance of the HTSGR and that the
Defendant had not properly maintained the HTSGR. The parties have agreed
for the issue of liability to be determined here and for any necessary
assessment of damages to be determined at a later stage.

[2014] SGHC 109
The Plaintiffs case

19
It is the Plaintiffs case that the Defendant has breached its duties of
care in both contract and tort. Its submissions are:

(a)
That the Defendant failed to provide reasonable consultancy
services for effective preventive maintenance and power failure as

required by the agreement;
(b)
That the Defendant failed to maintain the Plaintiffs electrical
equipment properly as an implied term under the agreement;

(c)
That the Defendant failed to take reasonable care when
conducting its bimonthly inspections by failing to take note of the high

moisture levels within the HTSGR; and
(d)
That the Plaintiff was itself not negligent in any way to give
rise to contributory negligence.

The Defendants case
20
The Defendant accepts that it has a duty in contract and in tort to
provide reasonable consultancy services to the Plaintiff. However, the

Defendant disputes that it breached the standard of care required to be taken.
Furthermore, the Defendant disputes that it is under a duty of care to maintain
the Plaintiffs electrical equipment under both contract and tort. The
Defendant also argued that it did not breach its duty to take reasonable care in
the inspection of the HTSGR because its duty did not require it to measure
humidity within the HTSGR.

21
[2014] SGHC 109
Even if it is found that the Defendant had breached any of its duties of
care, the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs repeated failures to heed the
Defendants reminders to conduct a SM amounts to unreasonable conduct
which acts as a novus actus interveniens that breaks the chain of causation and
absolves the Defendant of its own negligence. In the alternative, such failures
are signs of negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and the liability of the
Defendant should be reduced in light of the Plaintiffs contributory
negligence.
The Issues
22
It is not disputed that there was a flashover incident that occurred at the
third HTTFS which is a spare switchgear in the Plaintiffs HTSGR. The crux
of this case is: whose fault is it? The parties are blaming each other for the
cause of the flashover incident. In order to arrive at a just and fair decision I
shall deal with the following issues:
(a)
Was there a duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
under the agreement to provide reasonable electrical consultancy

services for effective preventive maintenance to avert power failure?
At the same time, was there a duty of care owed by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff in tort?
(b)
Did the Defendant owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff under the
agreement and/or in tort to reasonably maintain the equipment in the

HTSGR?
(c)
If the Defendant owed the Plaintiff any of the above duties of
care, what is the corresponding standard of care to be met and did the
Defendant breach its duty by failing to meet this standard?
10

(d)
[2014] SGHC 109
Did the Defendant also owe the Plaintiff a duty to take
reasonable care when inspecting the premises and was this duty
breached?
(e)
If the Defendant breached any of the duties above, was such
breach the direct proximate cause of the flashover incident or was there
an intervening event that broke the chain of causation?
(f)
Has the Plaintiff contributed towards the Defendants
negligence when it repeatedly refused to accept the Defendants

recommendations to conduct a SM? If so, what is the apportionment of
the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant?
The functions and duties of an LEW
Under the EMA Handbook
23
For the purposes of determining whether there exists a duty of care in
relation to consultation and/or maintenance, it is important to understand the

functions and duties of an LEW under the licensing scheme for electrical
installations. Under the Handbook for Application of Electrical Installation
Licence issued by the EMA (the EMA Handbook), an LEW is a person who
is technically competent in carrying out electrical work and is licensed by the
EMA. There is no dispute that the Defendant was an LEW properly licensed
by the EMA at all material times. The licensing of electrical workers is
pursuant to the licensing scheme for electrical installations such as the
HTSGR which the EMA introduced in 1975. As stated in para 1.3 of the
EMA Handbook, the licensing scheme was introduced to ensure that owners
of electrical installations engage a competent person, viz, an LEW, to take
charge of and maintain their electrical installations.
11

24
[2014] SGHC 109
Upon appointment, the LEW will inspect the electrical installation and
obtain an electrical installation licence on behalf of the owner if the LEW is

satisfied that the electrical installation is safe to use or operate. This is
pursuant to para 6.1 of the EMA Handbook. According to para 5.1 of the
EMA Handbook, the owner may only utilise the electrical installation if it is
licensed. Paragraph 7.1 of the EMA Handbook then states that the electrical
installation has to be inspected and certified fit for operation by the appointed
LEW at least once a year. Certification, which may only be done by an LEW,
is necessary for the renewal of the electrical installation licence so that the
owner may continue to utilise the electrical installation.
25
Under para 9 of the EMA Handbook, the roles and responsibilities of
an appointed LEW include, but are not limited to, carrying out inspection and
testing of the electrical installation, certifying its safety for use and operation,
recommending servicing or maintenance work when necessary and providing
advice on any technical or licensing matters related to the electrical
installation. Therefore, the Defendant, as the Plaintiffs LEW, was required to
inspect and test the HTSGR located on the Premises annually so as to certify
its safety for use and operation. It was also required to recommend servicing
and maintenance for the equipment in the HTSGR as and when necessary. The
inspection and testing, as well as any recommended servicing or maintenance,
are to prevent any safety hazard that may arise as a result of defects, such as
those caused by the wear and tear, in the wirings, electrical fitting and
apparatus in the electrical installation. This is described in para 2.2 of the
EMA Handbook which details the objectives of the electrical installation
licensing regime.
12

[2014] SGHC 109
Under the Singapore Standard Code of Practice for Maintenance of Electrical

Equipment of Electrical Installation
26
Furthermore, it is stated at para 1.4.3 of the Singapore Standard SS
538:2008 Code of Practice for Maintenance of Electrical Equipment of

Electrical Installation (the Code) that [o]nly authorised persons and
competent persons or persons working under the supervision of such
authorised persons may have access to the switchroom. An authorised person
and competent person may only be an LEW as defined at paras 1.3.7.1 and
1.3.7.2 of the Code respectively. In this case, the Plaintiffs HTSGR was not
accessible to anyone except the LEW, the Defendant. Hence, the Plaintiff had
to completely rely on the Defendant as regards the operation of the
installations in the HTSGR. Consequently, it is clear from the EMA Handbook
and the Code that the Defendant played a significant role in the maintenance
of the HTSGR to ensure safety and to avoid power failure. Bearing this in
mind, I proceed to consider the duties of care in relation to consultancy
services and maintenance.
Duty to provide reasonable consultancy services
27
The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of
care to provide reasonable consultancy services. This duty of care arose from
two sources. The first source is contract and this is premised on the agreement
entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 29 January 2007. The
second source is tort. Based on the Defendants submissions, it appears that
the Defendant does not deny the fact that it owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff
in relation to consultancy services. What is vehemently contested by the
Defendant is that it has not breached that duty of care. Nevertheless, I shall
13

[2014] SGHC 109
ascertain whether there is a duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
in contract and in tort as this is the foundation of the Plaintiffs claim.
Duty under the contract
28
The Defendant was engaged to provide consultancy services in relation
to the HTSGR long before the Plaintiff occupied the Premises. This
contractual relationship went back as far as 1986. However, on 29 January
2007, the Defendant and the Plaintiff signed an agreement for the former to
continue to provide consultancy services to the same HTSGR. This agreement
bound both the parties in this suit. It is also the key basis in which the duty of
care under contract arises. I shall reproduce the scope of work in this
agreement:
(A)
Scope of work
1.
Act on your behalf regarding EMA licensing matters.
2.
Provide twenty-four (24) hours standby breakdown
services for major power failure to be charged on hourly basis.
3.
Provide consultation services for effective maintenance
and power failure.
4.
Provide every two months inspection at the main
switchboard and submit report to EMA.
29
For the above services, the Defendant charged the Plaintiff a monthly
retaining fee of $150 plus 5% GST. The clause to be considered here is cl A3

which requires the Defendant to provide consultation services for effective
maintenance and power failure to the Plaintiff. This must be considered in
light of the fact that the EMA Handbook also requires the Defendant, as an
LEW, to recommend servicing or maintenance work. Furthermore, given that
only the Defendant may inspect and operate the HTSGR pursuant to the Code,
it is consequently the only one capable of providing consultancy services for
14

[2014] SGHC 109
effective maintenance. I am therefore of the view that there is a contractual

duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to provide reasonable
consultancy services for effective maintenance of the HTSGR.
Duty in tort
30
To establish a duty of care in tort, the test laid down by the Court of
Appeal in Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology
Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 (Spandeck) must be satisfied. Under the
Spandeck test, a threshold requirement of factual foreseeability must be met
before a two-stage test is applied.
31
The threshold requirement of factual foreseeability is clearly met here.
The Defendant ought to have known that failure to take reasonable care in
giving advice could result in the Plaintiff taking inappropriate measures in
relation to maintenance. This would then lead to the Plaintiff suffering
damages such as those caused by power failure resulting from inappropriate
maintenance.
32
Given that the threshold of factual foreseeability is met, the first stage
of the Spandeck test follows. This stage requires sufficient legal proximity
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. This is described as a composite
idea, importing the whole concept of the necessary relationship between the
claimant and the defendant: Spandeck at [79]. Proximity encompasses a wide
spectrum of factual situations. It includes the notions of physical proximity,
circumstantial proximity and causal proximity: Spandeck at [78]. The fact that
the Agreement clearly stipulated that the Defendant was to provide
consultation services to the Plaintiff establishes such a necessary relationship.
Furthermore, para 1.3 of the EMA Handbook required the Plaintiff to engage
15

[2014] SGHC 109
an LEW, the Defendant in this case, to take charge of and maintain its
electrical installation. This coupled with the fact that only the Defendant may
operate and inspect the facility under the Code further confirms the legal
proximity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
33
The second stage is an enquiry as to policy considerations that would
discourage the imposition of the duty of care. The Defendant has not raised
any policy considerations in this regard and I do not find any reason why such
a duty of care should not be imposed in such a factual matrix. Therefore, given
that the two-stage Spandeck test is satisfied, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a
duty to take reasonable care in the provision of consultancy services to the
Plaintiff in tort.
Duty to maintain the HTSGR
34
The Plaintiff also argued that in addition to the duty to provide
reasonable consultancy services, the Defendant also owed a duty to the

Plaintiff to maintain the HTSGR properly. The Defendant denied that there is
such a duty. Although the EMA Handbook makes it the duty of the Defendant
to ensure the safe operation of the HTSGR, I do not think that the duty
requires the Defendant to properly maintain the HTSGR in this case.
35
Firstly, there is no obligation on the part of the Defendant to actually
maintain the HTSGR under the agreement. It cannot be implied that the
Defendant must provide maintenance services because it is clear, based on the
dealings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, that any maintenance service
is to be conducted on the premise of a separate contract. This is seen from the
fact that whenever PDM testing or SM was recommended by the Defendant,
the Defendant would also submit a fresh quotation to the Plaintiff for its
16

[2014] SGHC 109
approval. Under the agreement, the Defendant was required to conduct

bimonthly inspection, provide consultancy services and make applications for
licence renewal on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant
$150 per month for these services pursuant to the agreement. When this paltry
sum is compared with the cost of a PDM testing (about $3,000) and the cost of
a SM (about $7,000 to $8,000), it must follow that the agreement does not
require the Defendant to also provide maintenance services. Furthermore, it is
also clear that the Plaintiff is free at all times to engage another LEW to
perform the maintenance of the facilities.
36
This was eventually conceded by PW4, Mr Lee Chu Bing, the
Plaintiffs General Manager during cross-examination:

Q.
Now Mr Lee, given the cost of a shutdown
maintenance, do you agree that shutdown maintenance
services could not have been part of the S$150 fee under the
January 2007 agreement?
A.
Agreed.
Q.
If you were to turn to Tab 5 (of the DBOD), Mr Lee
[y]ou will see, at the bottom of the quotation, there is an
acceptance portion; Is there, Mr Lee?
A.
Yes
Q.
This confirms the fact that shutdown maintenance
would be the subject of a separate contract; agree?
A.
Yes 1
I therefore find that although the Defendant is under a duty to provide

reasonable consultancy services to the Plaintiff, it does not owe a duty of care
to the Plaintiff to maintain the HTSGR.
Notes of Evidence, 22 January 2014, page 96 to 97.
17

[2014] SGHC 109
What is the standard of care for the provision of consultancy services by the
Defendant?
37
Given that the duty to provide reasonable consultancy services is
established under both contract and tort, I proceed to consider whether the
Defendant has breached this duty of care. This issue requires the determination
of the appropriate standard of care to be met by the Defendant. This standard
of care is usually the same under the contract and in tort: see Deutsche Bank
AG v Chang Tse Wen and another appeal [2013] 4 SLR 886 at [51]. I see no
reason to depart from this usual position. Furthermore, as the parties in this
case have not submitted on there being different standards of care under the
agreement and in tort, I shall proceed on the basis that the standards are the
same in this case.
Standard of care is pegged to that of a reasonable LEW
38
In this case, the standard of care required in relation to a duty of care
cannot be the general objective standard of a reasonable person using ordinary

care and skill. This is because the factual matrix in this case is materially
different. The Defendant was the Plaintiffs LEW. An LEW is a professional
electrical engineer who is technically experienced and competent in carrying
out electrical work. An LEW is licensed by the EMA to manage the HTSGR.
The Plaintiff, on the other hand, is a lay person who has neither the knowledge
nor the competence to manage the HTSGR. That is why the Plaintiff is not
allowed to enter the HTSGR despite being the owner. Thus this is a situation
of information asymmetry in which the Defendant is in the position of a
professional as contrasted with the Plaintiff who is a layman in relation to
electrical work. Therefore, the standard of care to be discharged by the
Defendant cannot be that of the reasonable man. It must be pegged to that of a
18

[2014] SGHC 109
reasonable LEW in the industry. The question to ask then would be thiswhat
would a reasonable LEW recommend to his client for the purposes of effective
maintenance under the circumstances of this case?
Industry standards under the Code
39
To determine the standard of consultancy services to be provided by a
reasonable LEW, regard must be had to industry standards. As noted by V K

Rajah JA in Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd [2014] 2
SLR 360 at [43]:
The standard of care required in relation to a duty of care is
usually the general objective standard of a reasonable person
using ordinary care and skill (Blyth v The Company of
Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch
781). However, factors such as industry standards and normal
practice can be taken into account at this stage. Cases such
as The Emma Maersk [2006] SGHC 180 (at [51]) and Tesa
Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd [2006] 3
SLR(R) 116 at ([17]) are instances where the courts accepted
what was shown to be normal practice to be the standard of
care. As such, we affirm the Judges observation that the
industry standard guidance provided by the Singapore
Standard SS 536 2008 Code of Practice (the Code) for the
safe use of mobile cranes would be applicable here (GD at [26]).
We note that the Code was listed as a useful reference under
the Workplace Safety and Health Councils Technical Advisory
for the Safe Operation of Lifting Equipment. Significantly, the
Code was accepted as the reasonable standard of care to be
observed by crane operators by all counsel during the trial. In
addition to the Code, the stipulations under the [Workplace
Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2009 Rev Ed)] would also be
relevant in pitching the standard of care.
40
The Court of Appeal in the above case accepted the Singapore
Standard SS 536:2008 Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Mobile Cranes as
evidence of industry standards for the safe operation of mobile cranes. It was
accepted as the "reasonable standard of care to be observed by crane
operators". In this case, the Plaintiff made reference to the Code. As stated in
19

[2014] SGHC 109
the Foreword, the Code was established through joint efforts of

knowledgeable representatives from the industry, tertiary institutions, major
users, electricity authority, contractors associations, and engineering services
suppliers. It was intended to establish good practice standard for the
maintenance of electrical installations, to be used by maintenance personnel,
Licensed Electrical Workers, property and factory owners, contractors, facility
managers, electrical engineers and practitioners. Therefore, regard should be
had to the recommendations under the Code as to the frequency and type of
maintenance to be conducted in relation to particular electrical installations.
Any recommendations provided by an LEW under his duty to provide
consultancy services for effective maintenance should accord with the
recommendations suggested under the Code.
41
Under para 1.6.2.2 of the Code, a table is provided to suggest the
frequency of maintenance to be conducted for electrical installations:

Table 1.1 Maintenance frequency matrix
Maintenance frequency matrix (Year intervals)

Equipment condition
Equipment
criticality
category
42
Poor
Average
Good
Low
1.0
2.0
2.5
Medium
0.5
1.0
2.0
High
0.5
0.75
1.0
In this table, the HTSGR which the Plaintiff utilised to operate a hotel
falls under the medium or high equipment criticality category pursuant to

paras 1.6.2.3(b)(iv) or 1.6.2.3(c)(iv) of the Code respectively. Therefore, with
20

[2014] SGHC 109
the equipment falling under the category of average condition, the

maintenance regime for medium equipment criticality is for a SM to be
conducted annually. The maintenance regime for high equipment criticality is
for a SM to be conducted every nine months. If this is so, then a reasonable
LEW in this case should have recommended a SM be conducted for the
HTSGR every nine months or, at the very least, annually. In fact, in the
identical letters sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on 16 September 2008
and 18 February 2009, the Defendant also stated that a SM should be
conducted once a year by industry standard.
Poor condition of the equipment
43
From the table, it is also clear that for equipment of poorer condition, a
higher maintenance frequency is recommended. This would mean that the

condition of the equipment affects the recommendation a reasonable LEW
would provide under his duty to provide consultancy services for effective
maintenance. The general guide to determine equipment condition provided
under para 1.6.2.4 of the Code illustrates some of the factors to be considered
vis--vis the condition of the equipment:
1.6.2.4 Equipment conditions
The electrical equipments condition shall be based on
physical aspects, usage, location, environmental conditions
and age of equipment.
[emphasis added]
44
Therefore, it is evident from the above that the age of the equipment is
a factor to be considered when a reasonable LEW gives his recommendation

as to maintenance of the electrical installation. In this case, the HTSGR
consists of Yorkshire FS6 22kV high voltage equipment that has not been
replaced since 1983. It was 26 years old at the time of the flashover incident.
21

[2014] SGHC 109
This would mean that frequent conduct of SMs is more crucial for the
purposes of effective maintenance and a reasonable LEW should factor this
into his recommendations to the Plaintiff.
EMAs inspection and maintenance regime
45
Other than the Code, regard should also be had to the EMA Handbook
to determine the appropriate standard of care to be met by the Defendant.

Under the EMA Handbook, Table 3 provides a recommended inspection and
maintenance regime for different types of electrical installations:
Type of
Installation
Inspection
Frequency
Remarks
Construction
Worksites
At least once per

month
Electrical installations at
construction worksites are
subjected to more wear and
tear and shall be inspected at
least once a month to ensure
they remain safe to use.
Trade fairs,
mini-fairs,
festive
lightings etc
Daily
Safety inspections should be

carried out daily to ensure
all parts accessible to the
public remain safe and all
protective devices in good
working condition.
Multi-tenanted
buildings,
condominiums
etc
At least once in
six months
Communal electrical
services such as risers,
lightings, socket-outlets,
protective systems, etc
should be inspected to
prevent causing danger to
the public.
High voltage
installations
Inspection and
maintenance
The manufacturers of high

voltage equipment/apparatus
22

Others
46
[2014] SGHC 109
schedule shall
be worked out
by the appointed
LEW, but
inspection shall
be carried out at
least once a year
should be consulted on the

maintenance requirements.
Annually
Inspection shall be carried

out before renewal of the
electrical installation
licence.
DW1, Mr Whye Yip Kwong, the director and principal consultant of
the Defendant, testified that the Premises fell under the category of Multitenanted buildings, condominiums etc. The Defendant had conducted
inspections every two months pursuant to the agreement. This was above and
beyond the recommended inspections every six months under the EMA
Handbook. By DW1s suggestion, the table also seemed to imply that no SM
is required for the purposes of maintaining the electrical installation at the
Premises. This cannot be the case. First, the Defendant itself had
recommended the conduct of a SM on several occasions to the Plaintiff for the
purposes of certifying the fitness of the electrical installations for renewal of
the Plaintiffs electrical installation licence. This would be contradictory to the
Defendants belief that no SM is necessary. Second, the table only suggests
inspection frequencies for different types of installations and does not
determinatively state that maintenance is not necessary. In fact, under the
Frequently Asked Questions section of the EMA Handbook, the following is
stated:
Q8.
How often should I carry out maintenance on my
electrical installation?
23

[2014] SGHC 109
Ans: Your appointed LEW will recommend to you a suitable

maintenance schedule after assessing the operating conditions,
operation needs, age of the equipment/apparatus and any
other relevant factors.
47
This seems to suggest that a maintenance schedule is required for all
electrical installations although the type and frequency of maintenance may

differ. Therefore, it cannot be that Table 3 of the EMA Handbook
recommends that no SM is necessary at all for the electrical installation at the
Premises.
48
In any event, I am of the view that the electrical installation at the
Premises falls under the category of High voltage installations instead.

Under the EMA Handbook, the term High voltage installations is defined in
a footnote 9 as [e]lectrical installations taking electricity supply at the voltage
of 6.6kV and above. The Plaintiffs Yorkshire switchgears are 22kV and this
places the electrical installation under the category of High voltage
installations instead of Multi-tenanted buildings, condominiums etc. PW7,
Dr Anthony Yee Kum Choon, the Plaintiffs expert witness, DW4, Mr Lee
Wai Meng, another director and principal consultant of the Defendant, and
DW5, Dr Tan Yoke Lin, the Defendants expert witness, all agreed that the
electrical installation at the Premises should be classified under High voltage
installations.
49
Under the High voltage installations category in Table 3 of the EMA
Handbook, it is further provided that [i]nspection and maintenance schedule

shall be worked out by the appointed LEW. This is clear evidence that the
electrical installation at the Premises must be maintained, such as through the
conduct of a SM. The EMA Handbook also states that the LEW should consult
the manufacturer of the Yorkshire equipment as to the maintenance
24

[2014] SGHC 109
requirement for the vintage Yorkshire switchgears. There is no evidence to

suggest that the Defendant did so. The failure of the Defendant to do so is a
breach of its duty of care. Further, this means that I must fall back on the
industry standards established under the Code to determine whether the
maintenance recommendations made by the Defendant accorded with the
appropriate standards. Based on the industry standards established above, the
Defendant should have recommended the conduct of a SM every nine months
or, at the very least, annually. It must also be considered that timely
recommendation of maintenance is more crucial given the very old age of the
Yorkshire equipment. Bearing these factors affecting the standard of care in
mind, I proceed to determine whether the Defendant failed to meet the
requisite standard of care required of him in discharging his duty to provide
consultancy services.
Breach of duty of care to provide reasonable consultancy services
50
Based on the conduct of the Defendant taken as a whole, I find that the
Defendant failed to meet the requisite standard of care in providing

consultancy services for the purposes of effective maintenance. It is not
disputed that surface tracking was the cause of the flashover incident on 19
December 2009. The parties also agreed that the flashover incident caused by
surface tracking would have been avoided if a SM was conducted any time
before the flashover incident. The last time a SM was conducted for the
HTSGR was on 14 December 2004 and no SM was conducted for the
following five years up till the flashover incident. This is despite industry
standard requiring a SM to be conducted within nine to twelve months. To
show how the Defendant failed to meet the requisite standard of care, I shall
25

[2014] SGHC 109
proceed to analyse the conduct of the Defendant from 14 December 2004 till
19 December 2009.
2004 2005: the last SM and subsequent PDM testing
51
A SM was conducted by the Defendant on the Premises on 14
December 2004. The results of the SM showed that there were no issues with
the electrical equipment in the Plaintiffs HTSGR. However, in 2005, the
Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff on several occasions to recommend and
convince the latter to carry out PDM testing. The Defendants conduct is
baffling as he should know that a PDM could not substitute the conduct of a
SM.
52
On 5 April 2005, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff and
recommended PDM testing by sharing with the latter a successful case of

PDM testing conducted by the Defendant. 2 The Defendant attached PDM case
reports illustrating how electrical installations were maintained without the
need for a shutdown of electricity. It also informed the Plaintiff that it used EA
Technology from the UK to detect early signs of partial discharge activity of
HT apparatus using the continuous mode transient earth voltage technique.
53
On 27 May 2005, the Defendant again wrote to the Plaintiff informing
the latter of the benefits of conducting an infrared thermographic inspection.

In that letter it further added:
Many establishments have actually adopted Infrared
Thermography as one of their main predictive and preventive
PBOD, page 1.
26

[2014] SGHC 109
maintenance program, usually on a per annual basis,

depending on how much each establishment values the
importance of having a well maintained and trouble-free
electrical system.
54
On 11 July 2005, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff to share with it a
recent incident where there was a violent explosion of Yorkshire FS6 22kV
switchgears at a plant in Singapore on 6 July 2005. In its concluding remarks,
the Defendant advised the Plaintiff to conduct a PDM testing:
In view of the recent explosion, I will strongly recommend a
on-line, continuous mode partial discharge management of at
least 24 hrs to detect potential poor contact problem. This
measurement does not require any electrical shutdown.
Should the partial discharge reading be high, then a
shutdown maintenance should be planned for as soon as
possible.
55
Despite a very recent violent explosion at another location which also
used
the
same
Yorkshire
switchgear,
the
Defendant,
nevertheless,
recommended PDM testing. The Plaintiff, being a lay person, would not know
what would be the best cause of action to undertake to avoid an explosion in
its HTSGR. Therefore, it would have to rely on the best judgement and
recommendation of the Defendant, its appointed LEW.
56
On 15 July 2005, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a quotation for PDM
testing for $3,600. The Plaintiff accepted the quotation and the Defendant
conducted a PDM testing at the HTSGR from 18 to 20 July 2005. After the
PDM testing was conducted, no further maintenance of the HTSGR was
recommended or conducted for the remainder of the year. This was despite the
fact that industry standard required a SM to be conducted annually, ie, by 14
December 2005. The Defendant was also well aware that PDM testing should
not be a substitute for a SM. It appeared that the Defendant was more
interested in marketing its services in relation to PDM testing. The Defendant
27

[2014] SGHC 109
explained that PDM testing was recommended as it was the Defendants view
that there was no pressing need for a SM to be conducted since only half a
year had passed by the time the PDM testing was conducted. Nonetheless, this
does not explain why no SM was recommended afterwards. This failure to
recommend a SM in 2005 is the first evidence of a breach of duty on the part
of the Defendant.
2006: PDM testing
57
On 24 May 2006, more than one year after the last SM was conducted
on 14 December 2004, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff recommending the

Plaintiff to conduct a SM for the HTSGR so as to ensure continuous safe and
smooth operation of your power supply. The Defendant also provided its
quotation for the conduct of a SM in the same letter. However, there was no
response from the Plaintiff.
58
EMA
On 16 September 2006, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter titled

LETTER
ON
ELECTRICAL
MAINTENANCE
OF
YOUR
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION AT 12 QUEEN STREET LICENCE NO.

E70964. The contents of this letter are reproduced as follows:
The renewal of your annual electrical installation license from
EMA (Energy Market Authority) is a statutory requirement.
EMA will renew the license to you if the licensed electrical
engineer certified your electrical installation to be in healthy
condition. Such a certification of fitness can only be given
after a shutdown maintenance of the electrical installation,
which is once a year by industry standard. Should such a
frequency be not possible due to the nature of your business,
it is common and acceptable to defer the shutdown
maintenance to the next calendar year. In place of the deferred
shutdown maintenance, it is common to measure the
insulation health of your electrical installation by continuous
mode,
on-line
and
non-intrusive
partial
discharge
measurement for high tension switchgear, dissolve gas
28

[2014] SGHC 109
analysis for transformer, infrared thermography for low

tension
switchboard
and
HFCT
partial
discharge
measurement of the high voltage cables. Such measurements
can be done without any electricity disruption to you.
If you have no plans for shutdown maintenance for this
calendar year, I will strongly recommend the above mentioned
measurement be done so that I will be able to certify your
electrical installation fit for the renewal of your EMA license.
In the letter, there was no quotation for any proposed SM or PDM testing. The
Plaintiff did not respond to the letter. The Defendant subsequently wrote to the
Plaintiff again on 9 October 2006 recommending the Plaintiff to have a SM
conducted for the HTSGR. However, there was again no response from the
Plaintiff.
59
Subsequently, one of the Defendants service engineers, DW3, Mr
Seah Yew Chuan Ernest, called the Plaintiffs Building Manager, PW5, Mr
Mohamad Sharif bin Suhaini, approximately one to two weeks after the letter
dated 9 October 2006. DW5 asked PW5 for the Plaintiffs response in relation
to the recommendation to conduct a SM. PW5 informed DW3 that the
Plaintiffs management had not given the approval to carry out the SM
proposed by the Defendant. This was because the Plaintiff was not willing to
schedule and carry out a SM as the hotel had high occupancy rates. An
interruption to the electricity supply required by a SM would adversely disrupt
the Plaintiffs business operations.
60
PW5 instead inquired as to whether there was any alternative
maintenance measure to a SM which could be conducted to service, maintain

and test the electrical equipment on the Premises. DW3 recommended that a
PDM testing be done although he did inform PW5 that a PDM testing is not a
29

[2014] SGHC 109
perfect substitute for a SM. PW5 then requested DW3 to issue the Plaintiff a
quotation for the carrying out of a PDM testing.
61
On 20 November 2006 the Defendant then proceeded to issue the
Plaintiff a quotation for the carrying out of a PDM testing. The Plaintiff
accepted this quotation. A PDM testing was subsequently carried out on the
Premises from 9 to 11 December 2006. At this time, it had been two years
since the last SM was done. In other words, the conduct of a SM was long
overdue at this point in time. Nonetheless, the Defendant still recommended
and conducted a PDM testing in place of a SM. Furthermore, the Defendant
was the one who suggested that PDM testing could be done in lieu of a SM in
its letter to the Plaintiff on 16 September 2006. The Defendant also indicated
in the same letter that it would still certify the electrical installation at the
Premises as being in a healthy condition so as to obtain renewal of the
electrical installation licence for the Premises. It was therefore not surprising
that the Plaintiff opted for PDM testing instead of a SM under such
circumstances in 2006.
2007: No PDM testing and no SM
62
On 1 October 2007, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff
recommending a SM be conducted for the Premises. The Defendant did not

recommend anything to the Plaintiff for the first three-quarters of 2007 despite
the fact that it had already been more than two years since the last SM was
conducted. The Plaintiff did not respond to this letter. According to DW4,
when there was no response to the letter, he called PW5 to enquire as to the
Plaintiffs response to the Defendants recommendation. The Plaintiff did not
provide a definite response to this enquiry. Consequently, no PDM testing or
SM was done in 2007. Nonetheless, the Defendant continued to certify the
30

[2014] SGHC 109
electrical installation at the Premises fit for renewal despite the fact that no
SM had been conducted since 14 December 2004.
63
This certification, despite the fact that no SM had been conducted, is
further evidence of the Defendants breach of duty of care. The Plaintiff would
not know the actual condition of its electrical installation and such
certification in the absence of any maintenance would lead the Plaintiff to
believe that the current state of affairs then was acceptable. The Defendant
failed to highlight the importance of conducting a SM to the Plaintiff.
2008: No PDM testing and no SM
64
On 20 February 2008, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a quotation
for the conduct of a PDM testing by the Defendant. Such a recommendation at

this juncture is inappropriate. The Defendant should have insisted on a SM
being conducted as the last SM was done more than three years ago. However,
the Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendants quotation. I must highlight that
the need to insist on a SM being conducted becomes more and more dire as
time passes since the risk of a safety hazard occurring increases with the delay
in the conduct of a SM.
65
The Defendant did not recommend any further maintenance measure to
the Plaintiff up till 16 September 2008 when it sent to the Plaintiff a letter
identical to the one sent on 16 September 2006 (reproduced at [58]). The
Plaintiff did not respond.
66
The Defendant followed up on 4 December 2008 by sending to the
Plaintiff a letter recommending a SM to be conducted with a quotation for a

SM contained within. There was again no response. This would have been the
31

[2014] SGHC 109
second year in which neither a PDM testing nor a SM was conducted. As far
as the conduct of a SM was concerned, it was four years since it was last done.
The Defendant did not bring to the attention of the Plaintiff the fact that it was
very dangerous for it not to carry out a SM for such a long time. Nonetheless,
the Defendant continued to certify the fitness of the electrical installation at
the Premises when it must had known that it was unsafe to continue without
conducting a SM and had the electrical installation licence renewed.
2009: PDM testing
67
On 18 February 2009, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter with the
exact same content as the one the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff on 16
September 2006 and 16 September 2008. It appears that this advisory was sent
almost as a matter of routine by the Defendant without applying its mind to
actual situation it faced. It was highly inappropriate for the Defendant to send
this same advisory considering the extensive delay in the conduct of both a
SM and a PDM testing.
Abnormal readings from the PDM testing
68
DW3 then called PW5 sometime later to enquire as to the Plaintiffs
response to the Defendants letter dated 18 February 2009. PW5 informed

DW3 that the Plaintiff wanted to do a PDM testing instead of a SM. The
Defendant subsequently sent the Plaintiff a quotation for the proposed PDM
testing to be done on 13 March 2009. The Defendant should not have acceded
to the Plaintiffs requests. It should have emphasised the dire need for the
Plaintiff to conduct a SM so as to ensure the safety of the electrical installation
and insisted on the conduct of a SM instead. Nevertheless, a PDM testing was
carried out on 18 to 19 March 2009. The PDM testing results revealed low
32

[2014] SGHC 109
levels of partial discharge being detected in the quiet background in one of

HTTFS. This was communicated to the Plaintiff on 23 March 2009. However,
nothing was done as a follow-up to this abnormality.
May 2009: electrical shutdown by SP PowerGrid Ltd
69
On 29 April 2009, the Chief Engineer of Allson Hotel, Mr Kelvin
Kwan, notified the Defendant that SP PowerGrid Ltd had sent Allson Hotel a
notice, informing Allson Hotel that SP PowerGrid Ltd would be carrying out
equipment maintenance on the equipment housed at the PowerGrid sub-station
supplying electricity to both the Premises and Victoria Wing, which Allson
Hotel is situated at. This was to be done on 20 May 2009 at 11.59 pm and
would last until 6 am on 21 May 2009. This maintenance would have resulted
in the disruption to the electricity supply of both the Plaintiff and Allson
Hotel. Furthermore, the period of disruption coincided with the usual amount
of time needed to conduct an SM.
70
In light of the notice given on 29 April 2009, DW1 proceeded to call
PW5. DW1 informed PW5 about the equipment maintenance by SP

PowerGrid Ltd and the inevitable electricity disruption. PW5 confirmed that
he had received the same notice from SP PowerGrid Ltd in the form of a letter
dated 29 April 2009. DW1 then recommended to PW5 that a SM be conducted
during the period of disruption. The Plaintiff did not respond to this
recommendation. The Defendant also took no further steps to insist on the
conduct of a SM and, in the end, no SM was conducted during the electrical
shutdown. In fact, after the electrical shutdown, no SM was recommended by
the Plaintiff before the flashover incident occurred on 19 December 2009.
33

71
[2014] SGHC 109
The Defendant, being an experienced LEW, who had been managing
the Plaintiffs Yorkshire equipment since 1986 ought to have known of the
urgency of conducting a SM during this power disruption. First, the Yorkshire
equipment was 26 years old at that point in time. Second, the industry standard
was for a SM to be conducted annually and it was about four years overdue in
this case. Third, the recent anomalous PDM testing results should have made
the conduct of a SM even more crucial than before. Collectively, these factors
would have caused serious concerns to a reasonable and responsible LEW.
Such an LEW would have alerted the Plaintiff that the situation had turned
very critical and that no further delay could be tolerated for the conduct of a
SM. It appears that DW1 only informed PW5 to take advantage of the
electrical shutdown on 21 May 2009 to carry out a SM. Neither DW1 nor the
Defendant explained to PW4, PW5 or the Plaintiff how critical it was for the
immediate conduct of a SM when the Plaintiff did not respond to the
recommendation for a SM to be conducted. At this juncture, it was more than
a matter of convenience to take advantage of the situation to conduct a SM.
The conduct of a SM was a matter of necessity and exigency. The Defendant
failed to discharge his duty of care by failing to follow up with actions to
explain the critically dangerous situation to the Plaintiff. Despite these signs
that something was not right with the Plaintiffs installations, the Defendant
did the unthinkable. He continued to certify the fitness of the Plaintiffs
electrical installation on 20 March 2009 for the renewal of the electrical
installation licence which would have expired on 7 June 2009.
The overall conduct of the Defendant
72
The Defendant in its overall conduct behaved in a lackadaisical manner.
It did not pay heed to the increasingly apparent danger signs and failed to take
34

[2014] SGHC 109
reasonable steps to draw the attention of the Plaintiff to these signs. No effort
was undertaken on the part of the Defendant to explain how crucial the
conduct of a SM was for the purposes of the smooth and safe operation of the
electrical installation at the Premises. The Defendant only mentioned that a
SM was necessary for such smooth and safe operation without explaining the
rationale behind such a necessity. Even then such reminders that came with
the recommendations to perform a SM were clearly perfunctory.
73
The Defendant had also failed to take into consideration the
vulnerability of the third HTTFS which was racked-out since 2005 when
Allison Hotel stopped using it. This became a spare switchgear and was in a
rack-out position. The circuit breaker compartment was exposed to the
external environment. The presence of air gaps between the circuit breaker
truck and the switchgear enclosure allowed containment and moisture to form.
This resulted in the flashover incident at the third HTTFS. The Defendant
ought to know of this danger, especially, when the third HTTFS was not
maintained for about five years. Therefore, the nonchalant attitude of the
Defendant when the Plaintiff did not respond positively to its recommendation
for a SM on 20 May 2009 to coincide with SP PowerGrid Ltds equipment
maintenance was another indication of its negligence. The Defendant had
therefore failed to advise the Plaintiff correctly in relation to effective
maintenance and had breached its duties.
Was the Defendant in a state of helplessness?
74
The Defendant sought to argue that in light of the Plaintiffs non-
response to its recommendations, it was unable to do anything as regards the

conduct of a SM. However, I do not think that the Defendant is as helpless as
it would like to portray. What the Defendant should have done, which I agree
35

[2014] SGHC 109
with the Plaintiff on, was to refuse to certify the safety of the Premises and
renew the Plaintiffs licence unless the Plaintiff conducted a SM as the
HTSGR was no longer fit for safe operation. This, in my view, is what a
responsible and civic-minded LEW must do in such a situation.
75
Most, if not all, businesses are always cost conscious to maximise
profits and the Plaintiff is no exception. In this case, the dangers associated
with the failure to conduct a SM for several years were not conveyed to the
Plaintiff. Instead, the Defendant recommended PDM testing as a viable
alternative which the Plaintiff clearly favoured and consequently had chosen
as PDM testing costs less than a SM and is less disruptive. If the Plaintiff was
informed that the Defendant would not certify the Plaintiffs electrical
installation for the annual renewal of its licence, this would have caught the
Plaintiffs immediate attention as the latter could not operate its hotel without
electricity. The Plaintiff would then have been more agreeable to the conduct
of a SM so as to preserve its business interests.
76
In the end, the Defendant failed to take a stance against its client, the
Plaintiff. I emphasise here that, unlike certain service providers who must
strictly obey their clients instructions, professionals like the Defendant cannot
simply accede to the clients demands and bend over backwards. This is
especially so because professionals, such as LEW, lawyers and accountants,
owe a civic duty to society. In the case of the Defendant, he must ensure that
the electrical installation is safe so as to protect not only the Plaintiff but
others, such as the occupants of the hotel, as well. Just as how a lawyer must
ensure that his client acts within ethical and legal boundaries regardless of the
demands of his client, the Defendant should have taken the adequate steps to
36

[2014] SGHC 109
ensure that the Plaintiff acted within safe boundaries instead of allowing the
Plaintiff to indefinitely defer the long overdue SM.
EMAs investigation into the flashover incident
77
EMA carried out an investigation into the flashover incident. The court
was not informed of the details of that investigation. The Defendant submitted
that the EMA could not find any evidence to suggest that Mr Whye Yip
Kwong had violated any safety rules. 3 This was a reply by the EMA to the
Plaintiffs counsel dated 17 September 2012. Therefore, the Defendant argued
that it should not be liable for negligence. However, in an earlier response to
the same counsel dated 28 August 2012, the EMA stated that [a]ppropriate
action has already been taken on the licensed engineer Mr Whye Yip Kwong
after our investigation. This would then suggest that DW1 had breached some
duty he was under as an LEW so as to warrant appropriate action to be taken.
It appears that the letters sent by the EMA reflect conflicting outcomes of their
investigations. This evidence therefore does not assist either party. It also does
not assist this court on the issue of whether the Defendant had breached its
duty of care owed to the Plaintiff. Any decision as to breach of duty on the
part of the Defendant must therefore be made independent of the EMA
investigation.
78
For the reasons above, I find that the Defendant had breached the duty
of care to provide reasonable consultancy services to the Plaintiff. However,

before I proceed to deal with the issues of causation and contributory
negligence, I shall first deal with an ancillary issue raised by the Plaintiff in
PBOD, page 129.
37

[2014] SGHC 109
relation to the Defendants duty to inspect the electrical installation at the

Premises.
Duty of care in relation to the bimonthly inspections
79
Shortly after the flashover incident, the Plaintiff engaged Matcor
Technology & Services Pte Ltd (Matcor) to conduct a failure assessment for
the flashover incident. PW3, Ken Sidharta, an electrical engineer employed by
Matcor, inspected the HTSGR shortly after the flashover incident and
prepared a failure assessment report (the Matcor Report). In the Matcor
Report, PW3 observed that there was corrosion with paint blistering on a part
of a wall in the HTSGR. He also observed moulds and watermarks in other
areas of the HTSGR. Furthermore, traces of condensed moisture and
corrosion were observed at scattered areas of the internal and external
[surfaces] of the electrical panels. These observations were corroborated by
photographic evidence and are evidence of a high moisture levels within the
HTSGR.
80
It is therefore the Plaintiffs submission that the Defendant breached its
duty owed to the Plaintiff as it failed to take note of the signs of high moisture
levels within the HTSGR which were identified in the Matcor Report.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was under a duty to check for such
danger signs within the HTSGR when it was inspecting the HTSGR and notify
the Plaintiff accordingly if any such phenomenon is detected. However, the
Defendant did not do so in this case.
38

[2014] SGHC 109
Is the Defendant under a duty to check for high moisture levels within the
HTSGR?
81
Under cl A4 of the agreement, the Defendant had agreed to conduct
bimonthly inspections at the main switchboard in the Plaintiffs HTSGR so

that it may advice the Plaintiff accordingly. This bimonthly inspection is
visual and sensory and could only be conducted by the Defendant as an LEW
since the Plaintiff is not permitted to access the HTSGR under the Code. The
purpose of such a bimonthly inspection is to allow the LEW to detect potential
safety risks within the HTSGR so that it may notify the Plaintiff for the
Plaintiff to act accordingly. Under para 1.4.13 of the Code, moisture is
identified as a potential threat to the safe operation of electrical installations:
1.4.13 Moisture and contamination
Moisture is always a potential danger. Temperature variations
which occur in the switchroom may result in condensation
due to high humidity. This moisture coupled with dirt and
dust may lead to electrical breakdown. Preventive measures
may include sealing of unnecessary openings and installation
of dehumidifiers or heaters. Routine inspection should include
verification that such devices are functioning properly.
82
Hence, based on the Code itself, it would seem that the Defendant
owed a contractual duty of care to check for high moisture content within the
HTSGR given its high threat value. The Defendant disagreed on the basis that
it is not required to measure humidity levels within the HTSGR. The
Defendants bimonthly inspections were conducted pursuant to a standard
checklist issued by the EMA under the EI(R1) Report by Licensed Electrical
Worker for Condominiums and Multi-Tenanted Buildings (the EMA
Checklist). Earlier (at [48]), I stated that the electrical installation at the
Premises falls under the category of High voltage installations rather than
the category of Multi-tenanted buildings, condominiums etc. The contents
39

[2014] SGHC 109
of the EMA Checklist, therefore, are not conclusive of the scope of duty that
the Defendant owed. However, to the extent that the EMA Checklist may be
illustrative of the items that an LEW commonly takes note when inspecting
electrical installations, I have given it further consideration. As the Defendant
has asserted, the EMA Checklist does not reveal any specific requirement for
an LEW to check the humidity levels in an electrical installation. Therefore,
according to the Defendant, since it was not required to check humidity levels,
it was not in breach of its duty for failing to take notice and notify the Plaintiff
of the evidence of high moisture levels within the HTSGR found in the Matcor
Report.
(1)
Is the presence of water in HTSGR important?
83
I would like to explain the difference between humidity and moisture.
Humidity refers to the amount of water vapour in the air. Moisture, on the
other hand, relates to any presence of water within the environment regardless
of whether it is in the gaseous or liquid state. Humidity will contribute to
moisture levels within an environment but is not necessarily the only source of
moisture. Furthermore, as noted by para 1.4.13 of the Code, it is moisture that
is a potential danger and high humidity levels only contribute to it. Although
the Defendant is not required to measure the humidity within the HTSGR, it
does not mean that it may ignore evidence of high moisture levels within the
HTSGR such as those observed in the Matcor Report. Corrosion, paint
blistering, moulds and watermarks are easily noticeable. As a professional
electrical engineer, the Defendant should have paid attention to such danger
signs and alerted the Plaintiff of them when conducting the bimonthly
inspections.
40

[2014] SGHC 109
(2)
The EMA Checklist
84
In any event, I also notice that item 3.6 of the EMA Checklist under
the heading Switchroom Requirements is generally termed Danger signs.

This is clear indication that the EMA Checklist does not seek to specifically
limit the scope of a LEWs duty when it comes to the detection of potential
hazards. This item 3.6 serves as an overarching, catch-all provision to account
for other danger signs not specifically defined and listed under the EMA
Checklist. Based on the Code, I am convinced that corrosion, paint blistering,
moulds and watermarks are danger signs indicative of high moisture levels
within the HTSGR. These phenomena are therefore danger signs that fall
under item 3.6 of the EMA Checklist which the Defendant should have
checked for and alerted the Plaintiff about under its contractual duty to
perform bimonthly inspections.
(3)
Specific conditions of the third HTTFS
85
The third HTTFS was in the rack-out position since 2005 when Allson
Hotel ceased utilising it. As it was in the rack-out position, the circuit breaker
compartment was exposed to the external environment due to the presence of
air gaps between the circuit breaker truck and the switchgear enclosure. As a
result, dust particles would accumulate on the surface of the spout insulators
behind the busbar shutters as a result of the gaps at the busbar shutters. The
accumulated dust particles would then absorb the moisture within the HTSGR.
Such a combination of dust and moisture is the cause of surface tracking,
surface tracking being the cause behind the flashover incident itself.
Therefore, the fact that the third HTTFS was in the rack-out position meant
that it was more vulnerable to surface tracking. As a professional LEW, the
Defendant should have been aware of this and should have paid greater
41

[2014] SGHC 109
attention to the signs of high moisture levels since such levels vary
proportionately with the risk of surface tracking.
86
Based on these circumstances, the Spandeck test is easily satisfied. The
threshold test of factual foreseeability is met as evidenced by the flashover

incident itself since surface tracking as a result of absorption of moisture by
dust particles is accepted as the undisputed cause of the flashover incident.
Furthermore, there is sufficient proximity since the Defendant was the
Plaintiffs LEW and, pursuant to the Code, was the only one who could access
the HTSGR to detect such danger signs. Since there are no policy
considerations in this case that act against the imposition of such a duty to
detect danger signs of high moisture levels in tort, the Defendant was
accordingly under such a duty in tort as well.
Scope of the Defendants duty
87
Even though the Defendant should have paid attention to the danger
signs in this case, this does not mean that the Defendant must examine the
HTSGR meticulously to detect signs of moisture when conducting its
inspections. I note that the inspection conducted by the Defendant is visual
and sensory in nature. Corrosion, paint blistering, moulds and watermarks
could be easily seen and it would not take the Defendant much effort to detect
them visually. These are obvious signs of high moisture levels and should
have been detected well before the flashover incident since these are not signs
that simply appear overnight. Therefore, all that is required of the Defendant is
to identify the obvious visual signs of high moisture levels within the HTSGR
and to notify the Plaintiff of such levels and the associated risks. I do not think
this is too onerous on the part of the Defendant who, as a professional, should
be well aware of the dangers of moisture.
42

[2014] SGHC 109
Breach of duty of care

88
The Defendant clearly failed to pay attention to the signs of corrosion,
paint blistering, moulds and watermarks caused by high moisture levels and
consequently failed to alert the Plaintiff as to the associated safety hazards.
Nonetheless, the Defendant also sought to explain why it was not necessary
for the Defendant to do so in this case.
89
The Defendant argued that the humidity levels inside and outside the
HTSGR are the same. However, as I have pointed out, humidity is not
equivalent to moisture. Having the same humidity levels inside and outside the
HTSGR does not disprove the fact that there existed high moisture levels
within the HTSGR and does not avoid the Defendants obligation to take note
of the danger signs which it should then have alerted the Plaintiff to. In fact,
the Defendant also submitted that the high moisture levels were a result of
water seepage or ingress from adjoining walls. This further reinforces the
conclusion that there existed high moisture levels within the HTSGR which
the Defendant should have been cognisant of as a result of the obvious signs of
corrosion, paint blistering, moulds and watermarks. Just because the moisture
did not originate from the air does not make it less dangerous. The danger is
more apparent in this case as the third HTTSS was racked out since 2005 and
was thus more susceptible to containments and moisture.
90
Therefore, I find that the Defendant breached its duty of care in
relation to the bimonthly inspections when it failed to pay attention to the

obvious danger signs of high moisture levels within the HTSGR which it
should have alerted the Plaintiff to. At this juncture, I would like to add that
high moisture levels contributed to the flashover incident as well since
moisture is a direct cause of surface tracking. The high moisture levels within
43

[2014] SGHC 109
the HTSGR resulted in a greater risk of surface tracking which the Plaintiff
should have acted on by conducting a SM. The Defendant was therefore
negligent as it failed to alert the Plaintiff to the presence of moisture in the
HTSGR. This also increased the importance of conducting a SM.
Causation
91
It is not disputed by the parties that the conduct of a SM would have
averted the flashover incident. Therefore, if the Defendant had taken

reasonable care in giving advice and ensured that the Plaintiff conducted a SM,
the flashover incident would have been avoided. This is sufficient to establish
causation. It is, however, the Defendants submission that the Plaintiffs
entirely unreasonable behaviour, in the form of its repeated refusal to conduct
a SM, is a novus actus interveniens that breaks the chain of causation.
Therefore, the Defendants negligence could not be said to have caused the
flashover incident and the Defendant argued that it should not be made liable
for the losses that arose from the flashover incident.
92
This legal principle espoused by the Defendant is clearly explained by
Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (Sweet & Maxwell, 20th Ed, 2013) at para 2-119:
When the conduct of the claimant exacerbates or adds to the
injuries of which he complains, that conduct will generally
result in a reduction of his damages on grounds of
contributory negligence, or failure in his duty to mitigate.
However it may be that the conduct of the claimant is so
wholly unreasonable and/or of such overwhelming impact
that that conduct eclipses the defendant's wrongdoing and
constitutes a novus actus. His own conduct is found to be the
effective cause of the injury.
93
The Court of Appeal applied this doctrine in TV Media Pte Ltd v De
Cruz Andrea Heidi and another appeal [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543 at [76]:
44

[2014] SGHC 109
We do not agree that Andreas omission to seek medical aid as

so wholly unreasonable as to constitute a novus actus
interveniens which would obliterate TV Medias wrongdoing. It
is only where the act or omission of a party is of such a nature
as to constitute a wholly independent cause of the damage
that the intervening conduct may be termed a novus actus
interveniens: Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986]
QB 507. Thus, in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2
AC 59, the House of Lords emphatically confirmed that the
failure to undergo a termination of pregnancy or to give the
child up for abortion did not break the chain of causation
between a negligently performed sterilisation operation and an
unwanted birth. Similarly, we fail to see how Andreas failure
to seek medical aid could be anything more than part of the
sequence of events. It was certainly not a wholly independent
cause of her damage.
94
This was also elaborated by Lord Reid in McKew v Holland &
Hannens & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 at 1623:

if the injured man acts unreasonably he cannot hold the
defender liable for injury caused by his own unreasonable
conduct. His unreasonable conduct is novus actus
interveniens. The chain of causation has been broken and
what follows must be regarded as caused by his own conduct
and not by the defender's fault or the disability caused by it.
95
The question is: is the Plaintiffs repeated refusal to conduct a SM so
unreasonable as to constitute a novus actus interveniens? I am not persuaded it

is so. In my view, the Plaintiffs refusal to conduct a SM was not a wholly
independent cause of the flashover incident. It may have contributed to the
flashover incident but it does not absolve the Defendant of all blame for two
reasons. The Defendants negligence itself had contributed to the Plaintiffs
repeated refusal to conduct a SM. First, the letters sent by the Defendant in
2005 encouraging the Plaintiff to conduct PDM testing caused the Plaintiff to
believe that PDM testing is a good and viable alternative to conducting a SM.
Second, the Plaintiffs belief that PDM testing was a good and viable
alternative was further perpetuated by the Defendants further letters from
45

[2014] SGHC 109
2006 onwards that suggested that PDM testing could be done in lieu of a SM
for the purposes of certification of fitness and licence renewal. Third, the
actual certification of fitness and renewal of licence done by the Defendant in
the absence of a SM only served to concretise the Plaintiffs belief. All in all,
it must be recognised that the Defendants continuous acquiescence to the
Plaintiff fuelled the Plaintiffs belief that a SM was not necessary and not
important. It was the Defendants service regime that had created a scenario
for a disaster to happen which indeed occurred in the form of a flashover
incident.
96
In any event, it must also be recognised that the Defendant had also
failed to inspect the HTSGR correctly and conscientiously. The Defendant had
also failed to alert the Plaintiff of the danger signs of high moisture levels. In
all of its refusals to conduct a SM, the Plaintiff was unaware of such a
potential hazard. Therefore, the Plaintiffs refusal could also be a result of it
being unaware of the increased risks associated with higher moisture levels.
This would mean that the refusal was also partly a result of the Defendants
failure to alert the Plaintiff of the high moisture levels within the HTSGR.
97
Therefore, the Defendants negligence was the primary and dominant
cause of the flashover incident. The conduct of the Plaintiff in refusing to

carry out a SM was not the wholly independent cause of the flashover incident.
However, the inquiry does not end here. I must next consider whether the
Plaintiff had contributed to the flashover incident.
Was the Plaintiff contributorily negligent?
98
The issue is whether the Plaintiff had behaved negligently and whether
this negligent behaviour contributed to the poor state of maintenance of the
46

[2014] SGHC 109
electrical installation that resulted in the flashover incident. The Plaintiff

submitted that the Defendant is an experienced LEW whereas the Plaintiff is a
lay person who did not have access into HTSGR. Moreover, the Plaintiff was
not aware of the conditions of the electrical equipment in the HTSGR which
only the Defendant had access to. Does this mean that the Plaintiff is absolved
of all responsibility for anything that happens inside the HTSGR, such as the
flashover incident? The Plaintiff cited Jackson & Powell on Professional
Liability (John Powell & Roger Stewart gen eds) (Sweet & Maxwell, 7th Ed,
2012) at para 5-146 in relation to how contributory negligence is supposed to
be dealt with in a situation where one party is a professional and the other a
lay person:
In the context of professional negligence a successful plea of
contributory negligence by the Defendant is less common than
in other areas of negligence. This is because the parties often
do not stand on an equal footing (as they do in, say, claims
arising from road traffic accidents). If the Defendant makes a
mistake, it may be difficult to say that the client was negligent
not to spot it or correct its effect, unless the client is expected
to be wiser than his own professional advisers.
99
This court has to decide whether the Plaintiff can hide behind the
shield of ignorance and put the blame solely on the Defendant for the poor
state of the electrical installation resulting in the flashover incident. If the
matters concerned technical knowledge that were not within the competency
of a layperson to understand and appreciate, I think it is generally acceptable
to absolve the Plaintiff of responsibility. However, the Defendant in this case
had in fact recommended the conduct of a SM to the Plaintiff on many
occasions. Yet the latter had repeatedly refused to grant the approval necessary
for the Defendant to conduct a SM. In Nance v British Columbia Electric
Railway Company Ld [1951] 1 AC 601, Lord Reid at [611] stated:
47

[2014] SGHC 109
But when contributory negligence is set up as a defence, its

existence does not depend on any duty owed by the injured
party to the party sued, and all that is necessary to establish
such a defence is to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that
the injured party did not in his own interest take reasonable
care of himself and contributed, by this want of care, to his
own injury. For when contributory negligence is set up as a
shield against the obligation to satisfy the whole of the
plaintiff's claim, the principle involved is that, where a man is
part author of his own injury, he cannot call on the other party
to compensate him in full. This view of the matter has recently
been expounded, after full analysis of the legal concepts
involved and carefully examination of the authorities, by the
English Court of Appeal in Davies v Swan Motor Co. (Swansea)
Ltd. (19), to which the Chief Justice referred.
[emphasis added]
100
Hence the question to be asked is whether the Plaintiff had through its
repeated refusals failed to take reasonable care in ensuring the safe operation
of its own electrical installation. This will require this court to examine the
Plaintiffs conduct, since the last SM was conducted for the electrical
installation at the Premises on 14 December 2004.
2005 to 2006
101
From 2005 to 2006, the Plaintiff was not blameworthy. The Defendant
itself recommended the conduct of a PDM testing in 2005 and the Plaintiff
obediently agreed to such a recommendation. It was not within the Plaintiffs
knowledge at the time it adopted the recommendation that the industry
standard required a SM to be conducted every nine months, or at the very least,
annually.
102
This industry standard was only made known to the Plaintiff on 16
September 2006 when the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter explaining that
the industry standard was for a SM to be conducted annually. In that same
48

[2014] SGHC 109
advisory the Defendant indicated that the conduct of a SM could be deferred

to the next year and that a PDM testing may be carried out in lieu of a SM so
that the Defendant could certify the Plaintiffs electrical installation fit for
renewal of its electrical installation licence. This was despite the fact that the
last SM was conducted on 14 December 2004. As a result, the Plaintiff did not
accept the Defendants recommendation for the conduct of a SM in October
2006. The Plaintiff instead responded by requesting for the alternative of PDM
testing suggested by the Defendant and subsequently accepted the Defendants
quotation for the conduct of a PDM testing. Thereafter, a PDM testing was
conducted at the electrical installation of the Premises from 9 December 2006
to 11 December 2006. The preference for the conduct of a PDM testing was
on the basis that the conduct of a SM was far more costly than the conduct of a
PDM testing. Not only was quotation for the conduct of a SM higher, a SM
also affected the hotels electricity supply and would disrupt the Plaintiffs
business operations. Nonetheless, it was not the fault of the Plaintiff that a
PDM testing was done in lieu of a SM. This is despite the fact that this did not
accord with industry standards. The conduct of a PDM testing was offered by
the Defendant as an alternative and the Plaintiff did not have reason to doubt
the advice of its LEW.
2007
103
The first sign of the Plaintiffs contributory negligence emerged in
2007. By this time, two PDM testings had already been conducted in 2005 and
2006. On 1 October 2007, the Defendant recommended the conduct of a SM.
It also reminded the Plaintiff again that the last SM was conducted on 14
December 2004. The Plaintiff did not respond to this recommendation. DW4
then contacted PW5 to enquire as to the Plaintiffs response. PW5 informed
49

[2014] SGHC 109
DW4 that he had to consult with the Plaintiffs management and to obtain
their approval. However, PW5 did not inform DW4 the decision of the
Plaintiffs management afterwards. Only when DW4 enquired with PW5 two
weeks later did PW5 inform DW4 that the Plaintiff was not willing to conduct
a SM because it would disrupt the Plaintiffs business operations. Furthermore,
unlike the previous occasion, the Plaintiff did not request a PDM testing to be
conducted in lieu of the recommended SM. It simply disregarded the
Defendants recommendations and paid no heed to the matter thereafter.
104
At this juncture, the Plaintiff was aware that the conduct of a SM was
two years overdue in accordance with industry standards. There is no evidence

to suggest that the Plaintiff asked or consulted the Defendant on whether it
was safe or not for the electrical installations not to have a SM conducted for
such a long duration. The Plaintiff was also aware that according to the
Defendants recommendations, even if it refused to conduct a SM, a PDM
testing should nonetheless be carried out in lieu of a SM. It did not act in
accordance with the recommendation and instead did nothing after refusing to
conduct a SM when it should have minimally conducted a PDM testing in
accordance with the Defendants recommendations. Being the owner of the
electrical installation, and the party responsible for approving recommended
maintenance methods, the Plaintiff had joint responsibility over the electrical
installation at its premises. It had to collaborate with the Defendant to ensure
the safe operation of the electrical installation. However, on this occasion, the
Plaintiff disregarded the recommendations of the Defendant and refused to
conduct a SM. This decision was premised on the business disruption caused
by the conduct of a SM instead of the more pertinent safety concerns. Hence
the Plaintiffs contributory negligence becomes apparent at this stage.
50

[2014] SGHC 109
2008
105
On 20 February 2008 the Defendant sent a recommendation and
quotation for the conduct of a PDM testing to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did
not approve of the Defendants recommendations again. This was despite the
fact that it had rejected the Defendants recommendation to conduct a SM the
previous year and that no SM or PDM testing was conducted at all in 2007. On
16 September 2008, the Defendant sent the same advisory letter sent on 16
September 2006. The letter once again informed the Plaintiff that the industry
standard was for a SM to be conducted annually and that a PDM testing may
be carried out in lieu of a SM which could be deferred to the next year. This is
the second time the Plaintiff was alerted as to the industry standard it should
accord with. On 4 December 2008, the Defendant once again recommended
the conduct of a SM and the Plaintiff again did not approve the
recommendation of the Defendant.
106
At this juncture the Plaintiff would have known that the last SM
conducted was already about 4 years ago while the industry standard was for
SM to be done annually. The Plaintiff continued to do nothing. Although the
Defendant had been certifying the Plaintiffs electrical installation fit for the
renewal of its electrical installation licence, the Plaintiff should have done
proper due diligence and instead checked with the Defendant whether it was
safe to operate the electrical installation without conducting a PDM testing for
two years and without conducting a SM for four years. Yet the Plaintiff, while
possessing full knowledge of the fact that it was not heeding its own LEWs
advice, did not consult the Defendant as to the appropriate course of action
and effectively ignored the Defendants advisory letter and recommendations.
If the Plaintiff had asked the Defendant about the need to conduct a SM the
51

[2014] SGHC 109
latter would have told the Plaintiff to carry out a SM. At this stage the
equipment had reached a danger point and an accident was just waiting to
happen. This is clearly contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff as it
is an obvious failure on its part to take reasonable care of its own electrical
installation.
2009
107
On 18 February 2009, the Defendant again sent to the Plaintiff the
same advisory it sent on 16 September 2006. This would have been the third
time the Plaintiff received the same advisory. Although the same advisory
suggested that a PDM testing may be conducted in lieu of a SM, the Plaintiff
ought to have known that the Defendant was sending out the same advisory.
As a lay person reading the letter, the Plaintiff would understand that a SM
may only be deferred for one year through the conduct of a PDM testing in the
interim. It may not be deferred indefinitely. The Plaintiff should therefore
have known by then that even though it did carry out a PDM testing once in
lieu of a SM, industry standards required it to have carried out a SM by 2007.
Yet Plaintiff once again chose the conduct of a PDM testing over a SM. The
PDM testing was conducted on 18 and 19 March 2009 when its electrical
installation was badly in need of a SM. It was therefore not surprising that the
PDM testing results revealed low levels of partial discharge being detected in
the quiet background in one of HTTFS.
108
DW1 subsequently called PW5 upon receipt of the PDM testing results
on 23 March 2009. DW1 informed PW5 of the irregularities detected and

recommended that another PDM testing be carried out using different
equipment in order to confirm the said results. DW1 also recommended that a
SM be conducted in light of such irregularities detected. The Plaintiff did not
52

[2014] SGHC 109
approve of any SM or any further PDM testing to be conducted by the

Defendant thereafter despite its knowledge that the last PDM testing gave
anomalous results. At this stage the Plaintiffs actions appear irresponsible. It
showed scant regard for safety standards. Unlike a reasonable person who
would at least be alerted as to the anomalous results, the Plaintiff simply paid
no heed to it and ignored the Defendants advice.
Should the Plaintiff have approved the conduct of SM when there was an
electrical shutdown by SP PowerGrid Ltd in May 2009?
109
The Plaintiff was informed on 29 April 2009 that SP PowerGrid Ltd
would be carrying out equipment maintenance at the Premises which required

an electrical shutdown for the Premises. Hence there was to be a disruption of
electricity supply to the Plaintiffs hotel from 11.59 pm on 20 May 2009 till 6
am on 21 May 2009. The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff was concerned by
the electrical disruption caused by a SM. Since the disruption caused by SP
PowerGrid Ltds equipment maintenance was inevitable, and since it was
possible for a SM to be conducted during the time when the electrical supply
was shut down for the purposes of the maintenance, the Defendant therefore
felt that the Plaintiff should take advantage of such an opportunity to conduct
a SM. This was especially so in light of the anomalous results from the
previous PDM testing conducted. DW1 therefore informed PW5 to ask the
Plaintiffs management to approve the conduct of a SM during this shutdown.
Again the Plaintiff did not approve the conduct of a SM recommended by the
Defendant.
110
The Plaintiff knew that the conduct of a SM was overdue for more than
three years. The Plaintiff also knew of the abnormal results of the previous
PDM testing which was evidence that something was very wrong with the
53

[2014] SGHC 109
HTTFS. Any responsible lay person in such a situation would have been very
concerned and would have at least undertaken some form of due diligence by
asking his LEW whether further delay of the conduct of a SM would be safe.
Furthermore, there was less reason for the Plaintiff to refuse to conduct a SM
since it would incur no additional costs from the inevitable electrical
disruption caused by SP PowerGrid Ltds electrical shutdown. Unfortunately,
the Plaintiff still chose to reject the Defendants recommendation and the
flashover incident occurred on 19 December 2009.
The overall conduct of the Plaintiff
111
From these circumstances, the Plaintiff, being the owner of the
Premises, cannot be exonerated from all responsibility for the safe operation of
the electrical installation merely because it had appointed the Defendant, a
licenced LEW, to take charge of the installation. The Plaintiff cannot simply
hide behind the fact that it was a lay person and the Defendant a professional.
Although the Defendant was supposed to provide the Plaintiff with
professional advice, it was still up to the Plaintiff to heed such advice. The
Plaintiff frequently did not heed such advice. Furthermore, it often rejected the
Defendants recommendations on the basis of financial and business
considerations rather than safety considerations. As the only one who could
approve the conduct of maintenance for the electrical installation at the
Premises, the Plaintiff therefore failed to take reasonable care in protecting its
own interests by disregarding the Defendants recommendations on so many
occasions. Under such circumstances, the Plaintiff is therefore contributorily
negligent. The Defendant is accordingly not wholly liable for the damage
caused by the flashover incident. However, before I proceed to address the
54

[2014] SGHC 109
issue on apportionment of liabilities between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, I

would first like to make some comments in relation to public safety.
Public safety
112
The parties in their respective submissions have addressed the
importance of public safety from a self-interest perspective. In this case, it was

fortuitous that the flashover incident did not lead to any serious ramifications.
The Plaintiff has produced documents illustrating the damage to property,
injury to persons and major disruption of electricity supply, not only to the
owner but also to the wider neighbourhood, caused by flashovers in the past.
Flashovers could also result in a raging fire that may lead to devastating
effects. People may be injured, or even lose their lives. Properties may be
extensively damaged. The potential harm that could arise from such incidents
is one of the reasons why the EMA requires owners of high voltage
installations to appoint their LEWs to take charge as lay person owners would
not know how to manage, maintain and service them.
The Defendant
113
The Defendant is a body licensed by the EMA to safeguard the safety
of electrical installations in Singapore. This court is perturbed with the

lackadaisical manner in which the Defendant discharged its duty to the
Plaintiff. The Defendant was prepared to certify the Plaintiffs electrical
installation fit for operation when the Defendant ought to know that it was no
longer safe to do so. This is an irresponsible discharge of its statutory duty as
LEW. To allow a high voltage installation to continue in operation by having
its licence renewed when it is not safe to do so puts public safety at risk.
55

114
[2014] SGHC 109
These proceedings disclosed the cavalier modus operandi of the
Defendants business operations. I do not have the impression that this case
was a one off incident. It appears to be systemic and it is probable that the
same conduct is adopted by the Defendant in relation to its other clients. This
is worrying because according to D1, the Defendant services about 66 substations in Singapore. If the Defendant adopted the same unacceptable manner
of servicing its clients as it had adopted in this case, it would mean that 66
other sub-stations in Singapore are also at risk. In other words, the
Defendants clients premises may result in an electrical incident arising from
poor maintenance which may cause further harm to others.
115
As a professional body that is responsible for such safety, the
Defendant owes a responsibility towards not just its clients but society in
general as well. As stated by r 5 of the Professional Engineers (Code of
Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules (Cap 253, R 3, 1991 Rev Ed):
Notwithstanding the responsibility to his employer and to his
profession, a professional engineer shall act with prime regard
to the public interest. [emphasis added]
The EMA should conduct a proper audit of the Defendants services in

relation to the maintenance regime of high voltage installations of its clients. I
also hope that the Defendant takes its responsibilities seriously in the future.
Even though it runs a business, all businesses must practice corporate social
responsibility, especially those with professional duties and when public safety
is at stake.
The Plaintiff
116
The Plaintiff should also perform its duty as the owner of the electrical
installation responsibly. The Plaintiff cannot put the entire blame for the
56

[2014] SGHC 109
flashover incident on the Defendant. Both the owners of electrical installations

and their appointed LEWs have to work together as a team to ensure that these
installations are safe for operation. Profits, costs and balance sheets are
important for owners of businesses but these cannot be the sole focus when
they have high voltage installations located at their premises. Safety to their
buildings and the surrounding neighbourhood is paramount as it is necessary
for the protection of human lives within the area. In this case, the Plaintiffs
main consideration when making decision as to the maintenance of the
electrical installation appears to be cost cutting. If it ever decided to conduct
any maintenance at all, it always preferred the conduct of a PDM testing given
that it is cheaper and does not cause disruption to the Plaintiffs business
operations. Safety considerations seem to have been side-lined. As a hotel
business, the Plaintiff owes a duty to ensure a safe stay for its patronsand
safety should have been at the forefront of its considerations. Such bottom line
mentality featured by the Plaintiff is legally and morally unacceptable. The
Plaintiff must reconsider its priorities in relation to its conduct of business.
117
I shall now to deal with the last issue of apportionment of liability.
What is the extent of the Plaintiffs contributory negligence?

118
The Plaintiff argued that there was no contributory negligence on its
part whereas the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff contributory

negligence should result in the Defendant being liable only for 10% of the
damage caused by the flashover incident. What should be the apportionment
of liabilities between the Plaintiff and the Defendant? Here we have the
Plaintiff, a layperson and owner of the electrical installation, versus the
Defendant, a licensed LEW. There exists information asymmetry between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant possesses expert knowledge and
57

[2014] SGHC 109
experience which the Plaintiff does not have in relation to the maintenance of
the electrical installation. The Defendant also had access to the HTSGR which
the Plaintiff could not access pursuant to the Code.
119
It is also important to emphasise the fact that the Defendant was
actually in a position of power since its certification is necessary for the

Plaintiff to obtain a renewal of the electrical installation licence required for it
to continue operating the electrical installation. Although the Plaintiff
continuously refused the Defendants recommendation to conduct a SM, the
Defendant nonetheless continuously certified the fitness of its electrical
installation for the purposes of renewal of the licence. In a way, the
Defendants conduct had encouraged the Plaintiff to opt for PDM-testing for
the purposes of maintenance, which is cheaper, instead of an annual SM as
required by industry standards.
120
Additionally, I would like to point out that the Defendants negligence
in its failure to pay attention to and alert the Plaintiff of danger signs
associated with high moisture levels was not something the Plaintiff could
have done anything about as only the Defendant was allowed to enter the
HTSGR. I am therefore of the view that the Defendant should bear greater
responsibility for the loss caused by the flashover incident.
Conclusion
121
For the above reasons, I find that the Defendant was negligent both
under the contract and in tort. However, I also find that the Plaintiff was
contributorily negligent. Therefore, the Defendant shall bear 70% of the loss
caused by the flashover incident and the Plaintiff shall bear 30% of such loss.
Parties will address the court on the issue of costs if there is no agreement.
58

[2014] SGHC 109
Tan Siong Thye

Judicial Commissioner
Savliwala Fakhruddin Huseni and Subramaniam Sundaram (M/s
Bogaars & Din) for the plaintiff;
Ian De Vaz, Seng Yen Ping and Tay Bing Wei (M/s
WongPartnership LLP) for the defendant.
59

(2014) SGHC 109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(2014) SGHC 109

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(2014) SGHC 109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the

court and/or redaction pursuant to the publishers duty in compliance

Hotel Royal @ Queens Pte Ltd

Tan Siong Thye JC:

On 19 December 2009, a flashover incident occurred in the High

Tension Switch Gear Room (HTSGR) on the Plaintiffs premises at the

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

duty. Thereafter I have to determine if there is any contributory negligence on

The Plaintiff is a company that operates a hotel business at the

The Defendant is a company that is in the business of carrying out

project management and engineering consultancy services. The general scope

the provision of consultancy services in respect of high/low

voltage electrical installations;

services for the purposes of obtaining licences from the Energy

Market Authority (EMA);

inspection and maintenance services; and

testing and measurement services for electrical installations.

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

Although the agreement was only entered into on 29 January 2007, it is

As the scene of the flashover incident is the HTSGR, it is necessary to

At all material times, there were four switchgears in the HTSGR.

Three switchgears were high tension transformer feeder switchgears

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

On 28 January 2005, Allson Hotel managed to secure another source of

The Defendant, as the Plaintiffs LEW, conducted bimonthly

inspections on the equipment in the HTSGR in accordance with the

A SM is the most comprehensive and effective form of maintenance

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

comprehensive as a SM. A PDM testing is a limited and less comprehensive

Although the Defendant performed the bimonthly inspections as part

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

The flashover incident occurred on 19 December 2009 at the Plaintiffs

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

compartment will be exposed to the external environment due to the presence

More specifically, gaps at the busbar shutters allowed the ingress of

Tracking is the result of a permanent conducting path, usually carbon,

being formed across the surface of insulation. This phenomenon is caused by

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

allowed for the Defendant to discover the accumulation of contaminants on

Hotel Royal @ Queens (Singapore) Pte Ltd trading

[2014] SGHC 109

The Plaintiffs case

care in both contract and tort. Its submissions are:

That the Defendant failed to provide reasonable consultancy

services for effective preventive maintenance and power failure as

That the Defendant failed to maintain the Plaintiffs electrical

equipment properly as an implied term under the agreement;

That the Defendant failed to take reasonable care when

conducting its bimonthly inspections by failing to take note of the high

rise to contributory negligence.

The Defendant accepts that it has a duty in contract and in tort to