Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v. Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR (R) 100; [2007] 1 SLR 720
Keywords: Under-certification - negligence- tort
Introduction
This case concerned a claim by the main contractors, Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd (“Spandeck”) against the Superintending Officer, Defence Science & Technology Agency (“DSTA”), under a construction contract. The construction contract incorporated the Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract For Construction Works (1999 Ed).
Spandeck sued DSTA for negligence. It alleged that DSTA had breached its duty of care to Spandeck by under certifying payments allegedly due to Spandeck. Spandeck’s action failed in the High Court and their appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
Decision
The Court of Appeal’s judgment was released on 8 August 2007. It is a landmark judgment in the law of tort.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal clarified that there should only be one test for establishing a duty of care namely the two-stage test comprising of proximity and policy considerations regardless of the type of loss allegedly suffered by the victim. Before this judgment, the nature of the such tests was unclear and Courts had applied many variations of tests.
Applying the two-stage test to the facts of this case, the Court of Appeal held that DSTA did not owe a duty of care to Spandeck because both requirements were not met.
The requirement of proximity was absent because there was no reliance by Spandeck on DSTA in view of the arbitration clause in the contract which entitled Spandeck to seek recourse against the employer for under certification of payments. In any case, policy considerations weighed against the imposition of a duty of care on the contractual framework then existing between the parties.
This case concerned a claim by the main contractors, Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd (“Spandeck”) against the Superintending Officer, Defence Science & Technology Agency (“DSTA”), under a construction contract. The construction contract incorporated the Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract For Construction Works (1999 Ed).
Spandeck sued DSTA for negligence. It alleged that DSTA had breached its duty of care to Spandeck by under certifying payments allegedly due to Spandeck. Spandeck’s action failed in the High Court and their appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
Decision
The Court of Appeal’s judgment was released on 8 August 2007. It is a landmark judgment in the law of tort.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal clarified that there should only be one test for establishing a duty of care namely the two-stage test comprising of proximity and policy considerations regardless of the type of loss allegedly suffered by the victim. Before this judgment, the nature of the such tests was unclear and Courts had applied many variations of tests.
Applying the two-stage test to the facts of this case, the Court of Appeal held that DSTA did not owe a duty of care to Spandeck because both requirements were not met.
The requirement of proximity was absent because there was no reliance by Spandeck on DSTA in view of the arbitration clause in the contract which entitled Spandeck to seek recourse against the employer for under certification of payments. In any case, policy considerations weighed against the imposition of a duty of care on the contractual framework then existing between the parties.