Sato Kogyo v Socomec: Negligence Claim for Fire Damage Due to Defective UPS System
Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and Singapore Telecommunications Limited (SingTel) brought a claim in the High Court of Singapore on 11 April 2012 against Socomec SA for damages resulting from two fires at SingTel's Kim Chuan Telecommunications Complex. SKS was the main contractor for upgrading works, and Socomec SA manufactured the UPS system installed. The plaintiffs alleged the fires were caused by a malfunctioning UPS unit manufactured by Socomec SA. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the fires were caused by a defect in the UPS unit. The court also found contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sato Kogyo and SingTel sued Socomec for fire damage caused by a defective UPS. The court dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence of causation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SINGAPORE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Socomec SA | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- SingTel leased the Kim Chuan Telecommunications Complex for data storage.
- SKS was contracted by SingTel to upgrade the Complex.
- Socomec SA manufactured UPS units for the Complex.
- A fire occurred at the Complex, causing damage.
- The FM200 fire suppression system was not armed at the time of the fire.
- Tokio Marine paid out $8,157,686.26 to SKS and $450,879.04 to SingTel.
- The plaintiffs claimed the fire was caused by a defective UPS unit manufactured by the defendant.
5. Formal Citations
- Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another v Socomec SA, Suit No 422 of 2009, [2012] SGHC 76
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| SingTel employed SKS as main contractor for upgrading works. | |
| SingTel appointed Socomec Asia as subcontractor. | |
| Subcontract between SingTel and Socomec Asia was novated, SKS replacing SingTel as purchaser. | |
| First fire broke out at Kim Chuan Telecommunications Complex. | |
| Second fire broke out at Kim Chuan Telecommunications Complex. | |
| Meeting held between plaintiffs, Socomec Asia, and defendant's representative. | |
| Action started by Tokio Marine in the names of SingTel and SKS. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to both SingTel and SKS.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- [1932] AC 562
- [1936] AC 85
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached its duty of care by not conducting the full range of tests required on the UPS unit.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1957] 1 WLR 582
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 460
- Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the fires were caused by a defect in the UPS unit.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1985] 1 WLR 948
- [2011] 2 SLR 63
- Novus Actus Interveniens
- Outcome: The court held that the actions of the SCDF did not constitute a novus actus interveniens.
- Category: Substantive
- Estoppel by Convention
- Outcome: The court held that estoppel by convention did not apply in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Contributory Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs were contributorily negligent in not arming the FM200 system.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Litigation
11. Industries
- Telecommunications
- Construction
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage test of proximity and policy considerations to determine the existence of a duty of care in negligence claims. |
| M’alister (Or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson | N/A | Yes | [1932] AC 562 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate user of their product. |
| Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, Limited | Privy Council | Yes | [1936] AC 85 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate user of their product. |
| Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 300 | Singapore | Cited to argue against the existence of a duty of care, but distinguished by the court as relating to economic loss rather than physical damage. |
| The “Sunrise Crane” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 715 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish between claims for pure economic loss and claims for direct physical damage to property. |
| Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1994] 3 WLR 761 | N/A | Cited regarding contractual exemption clauses and the duty of care. |
| Leigh & Sullivan v Aliakmon Shipping (“The Aliakmon”) | N/A | Yes | [1986] AC 785 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that a claimant must have either the legal ownership of or a possessory title to the property concerned at the time when the loss or damage occurred. |
| Nacap Ltd v Moffat Plant Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] SLT 221 | N/A | Cited to illustrate the meaning of 'possessory title' and argue that SKS did not have sufficient possessory title to the damaged property. |
| Jet Holding Ltd v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 417 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that possession on the part of a bailee would give a complete title and entitled the bailee to damages for loss or injury to the property itself. |
| The Winkfield | N/A | Yes | [1902] P 42 | N/A | Cited for the principle that possession is good against a wrongdoer and that the latter cannot set up the jus tertii unless he claims under it. |
| Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee | N/A | Yes | [1957] 1 WLR 582 | N/A | Cited for the Bolam test, which determines the standard of care in negligence cases involving professionals. |
| JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 460 | Singapore | Cited for the 'Bolitho addendum' to the Bolam test, requiring expert evidence to have a logical basis. |
| Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority | N/A | Yes | [1997] 4 All ER 771 | N/A | Cited for the principle that expert evidence must have a logical basis in determining the standard of care. |
| Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (The Popi M) | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 948 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the trial judge may accept the explanation of either the plaintiffs or of the defendant regarding causation. |
| Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank International), Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the trial judge may accept the explanation of either the plaintiffs or of the defendant regarding causation. |
| RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited as an example of economic loss caused by a defective product. |
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
- UPS System
- Fire
- Negligence
- Duty of Care
- Causation
- Contributory Negligence
- FM200 System
- IGBT
- Battery Room
- Automatic Test
- Factory Acceptance Test
15.2 Keywords
- fire
- negligence
- UPS
- Sato Kogyo
- Socomec
- SingTel
- Kim Chuan Telecommunications Complex
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Tort
- Negligence
- Construction
- Fire Damage
- Electrical Engineering