TEY SONG KIEM MRS GOH CHEOW MIANG v MOHD JAFFAR BIN ISMAIL practising as FFUSION ARCHITECTS (Singapore UEN No. XXXXXXXXM) & Anor
Applying Spandeck, the court found the 1st defendant owed a duty limited to design intent and reasonable supervision as per his contractual scope and did not owe a duty in respect of operational design or installation/testing; the 2nd defendant (operational contractor) was found to have constructed and installed the automated gate, owed a duty of care, and breached that duty by installing an inadequate 1.5cm stopper which, by the defendant’s own expert’s calculations, allowed the gate to be pushed past the bracket with forces reasonably to be expected in manual operation, causing the collapse; claimant and family conduct did not break causation and claimant was not contributorily...
- Citation
- [2025] SGDC 260
- Parties
- Claimant: Tey Song Kiem (Mrs Goh Cheow Miang); 1st Defendant: Mohd Jaffar Bin Ismail practising as Ffusion Architects (UEN 53432836M); 2nd Defendant: Wne One Enterprise LLP
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 2025
- Case Number
- DC/OC 174/2023
- Procedural Posture
- District Court Originating Claim No 174 of 2023 / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim against 1st defendant dismissed; Claim against 2nd defendant allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Duty of Care, Proximity, Scope of Services, Supervision, Novus Actus Interveniens, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Assessment of Damages, Pre Trial Loss of Earnings
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tey Song Kiem (Mrs Goh Cheow Miang)
Claimant
Mohd Jaffar Bin Ismail practising as Ffusion Architects (UEN 53432836M)
1st Defendant
Wne One Enterprise LLP
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
District Court Originating Claim No 174 of 2023 / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant (architect) owed a duty of care in respect of the operational design and supervision of the automated gate
- 2 Whether the 1st defendant breached any duty of care
- 3 Whether the 2nd defendant was the entity responsible for fabrication and installation of the automated gate and owed a duty of care
Ratio Decidendi
Applying Spandeck, the court found the 1st defendant owed a duty limited to design intent and reasonable supervision as per his contractual scope and did not owe a duty in respect of operational design or installation/testing; the 2nd defendant (operational contractor) was found to have constructed and installed the automated gate, owed a duty of care, and breached that duty by installing an inadequate 1.5cm stopper which, by the defendant’s own expert’s calculations, allowed the gate to be pushed past the bracket with forces reasonably to be expected in manual operation, causing the collapse; claimant and family conduct did not break causation and claimant was not contributorily...
Court Disposition
Claim against 1st defendant dismissed; Claim against 2nd defendant allowed in part
Orders
- 2nd defendant to pay claimant SGD 134261.80
- Interest on SGD 134261.80 at 5.33% per annum from date of originating claim to date of judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment