PROVE YOUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
In ST Building Solutions Pte Ltd v FortyTwo Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 184 (“ST v FT”), the Plaintiff failed to prove its special damages claimed and the Singapore High Court awarded general damages at a far lower amount.
Background. The plaintiff stored its goods in a warehouse unit directly below the defendant’s unit. A fire hose leaked in the defendant’s unit and water flooded the plaintiff’s unit. The plaintiff’s insurers appointed loss adjusters and there was an inspection of the plaintiff’s damaged goods. The defendant did not participate in any inspection ([1] – [4] FT v ST).
The plaintiff sued the defendant for specific losses amounting to $559,500.96, comprising ([5] ST v FT):
· damaged goods;
· wasted freight forwarding costs (which the High Court held the Plaintiff was not entitled to);
· disposed film wraps and polyethylene sheets;
· damaged pallets;
· waste disposal fees;
· labour costs; and
· loss of use of the unit.
The defendant conceded liability, and the issue turned on the quantum of damages which the plaintiff is entitled to recover ([5] ST v FT).
Assessment of damages. The defendant did not adduce factual evidence as to the damage. However, the plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of most of the specific losses in the High Court. This was because the plaintiff lacked evidence of the extent of damage to each item of the damaged goods. Therefore, the quantities of the damaged goods and the other heads of losses (except for loss of use of the unit) was not proved.
Lists of damaged goods. The plaintiff prepared lists of damaged goods after the inspection with its loss adjusters. However, the plaintiff did not provide any basis to show that the recorded items were indeed damaged. The inspection process by the plaintiff or its loss adjusters was not described, and the plaintiff did not call the loss adjuster to give evidence at trial ([3], [12], [14] ST v FT)
Loss adjuster’s expert report. The plaintiff’s expert report agreed that the goods had no residual market value. However, there was no assessment of the extent of damage caused to each item. ([8], [18] ST v FT)
Supplier’s letters. The Plaintiff’s suppliers had recommended that the exposed goods be disposed of. However, only 1 supplier had physically inspected the goods. But there was no evidence what that supplier did during the inspection ([9], [16] ST v FT)
Photographs. The Plaintiff’s photographs showed stacks of the goods standing in water. However, there was no link to any particular damaged item or specific quantities of allegedly damaged goods. ([9], [15] ST v FT)
In this regard, it is important to note that on the facts, the High Court observed at [15] ST v FT that “At the most, all that the Photographs show is that some of the plaintiff’s goods had been wet due to the flooding… What is disputed is the actual quantities of goods that had been wet, and the extent of wetting caused to each item. The Photographs, however, do not assist in determining this issue, because the plaintiff did not specifically link any of the Photographs to what it alleged to be a particular “damaged” item, or to specific quantities of goods recorded as “damaged” in the Initial and Final Lists.”
We highlight the above because, especially for contractors, it is important to note that while contemporaneous photographs are important evidence, it is equally important to ensure that the photograph is properly explained. A failure to properly explain or link the photograph to why you are relying on the photograph can prove fatal to a claim.
General damages awarded instead. Nonetheless, the High Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff suffered substantial loss. The High Court awarded the Plaintiff $250,000 in general damages (plus $1,607.14 for loss of use of the unit). ([32] ST v FT)
Significance. It is important to ensure that proper record keeping is maintained and conducted in order to prove a claim in Court.
It is important to conduct detailed inspections after an incident, and meticulously record down not just the findings, but also the processes and methodologies used in arriving at the findings.
Tags: Tort; Compensation in Tort; Assessment of damages
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication. Chancery Law Corporation is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance based on this publication.