TEY SONG KIEM MRS GOH CHEOW MIANG v MOHD JAFFAR BIN ISMAIL practising as FFUSION ARCHITECTS (Singapore UEN No. XXXXXXXXM) & Anor

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant (architect) owed a duty of care in respect of the operational design and supervision of the automated gate
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant breached any duty of care
  3. 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