Tang Da-Yan v Bar None (S) Pte Ltd: Negligence Claim for Tile Installation
In Tang Da-Yan v Bar None (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Refine Construction Pte Ltd, the third party, to strike out Bar None (S) Pte Ltd's claim against them. The claim arose from an incident where Tang Da-Yan was injured by falling tiles at Bar None's premises. Refine Construction had performed renovation works, including tile installation, years prior to the incident. The third party sought to strike out the claim, arguing that the renovation of the premises after the incident destroyed material evidence, prejudicing their ability to defend themselves. The court dismissed the application, finding that while Bar None was at fault for not informing Refine Construction earlier, the prejudice to Refine Construction was not so extreme as to prevent a fair trial.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Third party’s application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case involving a negligence claim against a contractor for faulty tile installation. The court dismissed the application to strike out the claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Da-Yan | Plaintiff | Individual | |||
| Bar None (S) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Refine Construction Pte Ltd | Third Party | Corporation | Application dismissed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Joel Chen | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nagaraja S Maniam | M Rama Law Corporation |
| Shelley Lim | M Rama Law Corporation |
| Adrian Ee | Ramdas & Wong |
4. Facts
- The defendant engaged the third party to carry out renovation works in February 2003.
- The renovation works included the installation of wall tiles.
- On 30 March 2007, the plaintiff was injured when tiles fell from a wall.
- The defendant's insurer appointed a loss adjuster to investigate the matter.
- In September 2007, the defendant renovated the Premises, obliterating the feature wall.
- The plaintiff filed suit in March 2010.
- The defendant commenced third party proceedings in July 2010.
5. Formal Citations
- Tang Da-Yan v Bar None (S) Pte Ltd, Suit No 168 of 2010 (Summons in Chambers No 279 of 2011), [2011] SGHC 49
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant engaged the third party contractor to carry out renovation works. | |
| Plaintiff injured by falling tiles at the Premises. | |
| Defendant engaged a separate contractor to renovate the Premises. | |
| Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant. | |
| Defendant commenced third party proceedings. | |
| Defendant filed statement of claim against the third party. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to strike out the claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 254
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on the negligence claim itself, only on the procedural issue of striking out.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Indemnity
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Defect Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may dismiss an action if a party has deliberately destroyed relevant evidence. |
| K Solutions Pte Ltd v National University of Singapore | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 254 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a striking out is possible even when the destruction of evidence was not to frustrate legal proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking Out
- Destruction of Evidence
- Fair Trial
- Renovation
- Negligence
- Indemnity
15.2 Keywords
- Striking Out
- Negligence
- Construction
- Renovation
- Tile Installation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Destruction of Evidence | 85 |
| Negligence | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Construction Law | 50 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Renovation Contracts | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
- Negligence