HWZ Forums

Login Register FAQ Mark Forums Read

[SIA 1 NTUC 0] interesting NTUC Foodfare vs SIA court case

Like Tree8Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 13-10-2017, 02:17 AM   #1
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
SimpliCity2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,131
Talking [SIA 1 NTUC 0] interesting NTUC Foodfare vs SIA court case

NTUC Foodfare loses suit over cafe closure


SINGAPORE - A High Court judge has throw out NTUC Foodfare’s S$443,000 suit over an accident caused by SIA Engineering’s employee that led to the eatery operator having to shut a cafe at Changi Airport for more than five months.

While the closure resulted from the accident that damaged a pillar of the building, Justice Debbie Ong said ordering compensation in favour of NTUC Foodfare was as good as saying it could rely “on the defendants (and everyone in the world) not to interrupt their business”.

In her written judgment made public this week, the judge said the closure of NTUC Foodfare’s Wang Cafe outlet at the T2 transit lounge were but “ripple effects” of a vehicle crashing into a pillar underneath the eatery. The effects were also something other business operators in the affected area similarly faced, she added.

The accident on Feb 13, 2014 was caused by Mr Yap Tee Chuan, an employee of SIA Engineering who was driving a ground handling vehicle.

The pillar he crashed into was one floor below Wang Cafe and the collision had caused part of the floor near the eatery to cave in.

The following day, the Building and Construction Authority issued a closure notice for the airport’s contractors to carry out rectification works to ensure the building’s structural integrity.

The order was lifted on July 30, but unlike other businesses in the affected area, Wang Cafe did not reopen on Aug 7 because it did not satisfy the airport’s safety requirements.

In particular, the Changi Airport Group (CAG) had raised concerns about damage to the kiosk’s waterproofing membrane and its existing support structure.

While the CAG was prepared to let the café resume operations if it could engage a qualified person or professional engineer to endorse its overall safety and operational readiness, NTUC Foodfare decided to undertake a renovation. It reopened in November.

NTUC Foodfare later sued Mr Yap and SIA Engineering for loss of profits, costs of repairing damaged equipment and rebuilding the kiosk, as well as rental during the period.

Dismissing the suit, Justice Ong said it was “factually foreseeable” that Mr Yap’s negligence “may cause harm” to users of the building, but he does not owe a “duty of care” to NTUC Foodfare.

NTUC Foodfare’s claims to recover damages in rebuilding the kiosk are “remote”, said Justice Ong, noting that these costs were incurred not due to any proven damage to the kiosk but to satisfy the CAG’s requirements.

“It has not been proven that the kiosk’s structure or waterproof membrane were damaged or compromised by the collision,” she said, adding that the rebuilding of the kiosk was a “precautionary measure” taken to prevent the possibility of future safety issues.

Costs incurred during the renovation period, including rent, are thus “pure economic loss”, ruled the judge.

She also found that damages sustained by equipment in the café — including an ice maker, a chiller, an electric toaster, and a water boiler, among others — were due to dust, rust and the lack of electricity supply and other utilities when the affected area was forced to close.

Justice Ong said the risk of losses NTUC Foodfare suffered should be “spread out throughout society through the engine of insurance”.


Noting that NTUC Foodfare was indeed insured in respect of the kiosk’s damaged equipment and loss of gross profits, the judge added: “It would be disproportionate for (Mr Yap) and vicariously (SIA Engineering) to bear not only the costs of the immediate and direct consequences of the collision, but also the losses caused to all persons who had relationship to the damaged property.”

In response to TODAY’s queries, NTUC Foodfare said its management was reviewing the judgment with its stakeholders and “shall decide on any subsequent recourse”, without elaborating.


http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...r-cafe-closure
SimpliCity2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 02:21 AM   #2
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 13,853
I guess Mr Yap must be a sinkie with his name all spelled out.
If he is a FW, they would put some unconfirmed driver.
wwenze likes this.
Medicated Oil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 02:24 AM   #3
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
SimpliCity2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,131
Justice Ong said the risk of losses NTUC Foodfare suffered should be “spread out throughout society through the engine of insurance”.


jsm... until whole society dragged in
another socialise (damage) cost?
SimpliCity2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 02:26 AM   #4
Supremacy Member
 
bullfrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,631
Don't really care. Let the insurance companies handle.
wwenze likes this.
bullfrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 02:30 AM   #5
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
SimpliCity2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,131
just LOL at the blatant comments
SimpliCity2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 02:33 AM   #6
High Supremacy Member
 
commie_rick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 49,894
The key issue is loss of business while re construction is ongoing, and that can be compensated by insurance
wwenze likes this.
commie_rick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 02:39 AM   #7
Supremacy Member
 
Charmeleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,394
Justice Ong said the risk of losses NTUC Foodfare suffered should be “spread out throughout society through the engine of insurance”.


jsm... until whole society dragged in
another socialise (damage) cost?
The point of insurance is to insure and protect by spreading out the cost. This is done by purchasing insurance where the insurer can recoup Monetary losses through the collection of insurance premium from the insured.
Pure economic losses like profits cannot be recouped as it is not direct costs arising from the incident. Direct costs includes cost of repair for the damage rising from the incident
wwenze likes this.
Charmeleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 02:50 AM   #8
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
SimpliCity2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,131
The point of insurance is to insure and protect by spreading out the cost. This is done by purchasing insurance where the insurer can recoup Monetary losses through the collection of insurance premium from the insured.
Pure economic losses like profits cannot be recouped as it is not direct costs arising from the incident. Direct costs includes cost of repair for the damage rising from the incident

ok

i pondering then why NTUC claim fr SIA Engineering if can be compensated fr insurance?


oso insurance co may hv to adjust future premiums upward for all insured to sustain... hence affect all insured
SimpliCity2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 04:45 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
zzzjil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 916
I think she implies that they are asking too much cos insurance already compensated them? From this part:

Noting that NTUC Foodfare was indeed insured in respect of the kiosk’s damaged equipment and loss of gross profits, the judge added: “It would be disproportionate for (Mr Yap) and vicariously (SIA Engineering) to bear not only the costs of the immediate and direct consequences of the collision, but also the losses caused to all persons who had relationship to the damaged property.”
wwenze likes this.
zzzjil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 04:51 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
zzzjil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 916
The damage happened in July. I think the judge probably thought them trying to claim for the renovation over the 4 months was too greedy of them? Maybe the judge would try to help then with the suit if it were more about the loss of business and engaging the professional to endorse safety and readiness in an acceptable time frame.

"While the CAG was prepared to let the café resume operations if it could engage a qualified person or professional engineer to endorse its overall safety and operational readiness, NTUC Foodfare decided to undertake a renovation. It reopened in November.

NTUC Foodfare later sued Mr Yap and SIA Engineering for loss of profits, costs of repairing damaged equipment and rebuilding the kiosk, as well as rental during the period."
zzzjil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 05:03 AM   #11
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
cuntzbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,949
Dunno Wang cafe is under ntuc

Sent from Pocoyo fan club using GAGT
wwenze likes this.
cuntzbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 05:30 AM   #12
Great Supremacy Member
 
jtv_tm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 52,841
it sounds more like someone is trying to profit from a free renovation cost.
__________________
-+ ♥ 臧芮軒 ♥ +-
-= ♥ Choi Sooyoung 최수영 ♥ =-
.-=陳妍希,我喜歡你=-.
jtv_tm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 05:37 AM   #13
Great Supremacy Member
 
snap99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 72,916
Rubbish la ntuc ..... non-direct damages also want to try their luck. Like that might as well everyone who could not eat at ntuc food after the accident sue the guy for having to eat somewhere possibly more expensive ....
wwenze likes this.
snap99 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 06:02 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
zzzjil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 916
Wait a second. Doesn't NTUC also sell insurance? Maybe different departments not linked but I'm sure they could have sorted it out first with their insurance or with that department before embarrassing themselves like that.
wwenze likes this.
zzzjil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 06:12 AM   #15
High Supremacy Member
 
kheng86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 43,271
ownself fight ownself
kheng86 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Terms of Service for more information.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

HardwareZone
Rewards