Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp damages appeal

1/23/2016
WishingStarLtdvJurongTownCorp[2008]2SLR909[2008]SGCA17
WishingStarLtdvJurongTownCorp
[2008]2SLR909[2008]SGCA17
SuitNo:
CA107/2007
DecisionDate: 09Apr2008
Court:
CourtofAppeal
Coram:
AndrewPhangBoonLeongJA,ChanSekKeongCJ,VKRajahJA
Counsel:
TanLiamBeng,TanKonYengEugene,LingVeyHongandSandraTanPeiMay(Drew&
NapierLLC)fortheappellant,HoChienMienandSheikUmarBinMohamedBagushair(Allen
&GledhillLLP)fortherespondent
SubjectArea/Catchwords
Tort
Damages
Contract
Judgment
9April2008
AndrewPhangBoonLeongJA(deliveringthejudgmentofthecourt):
Judgmentreserved.
Introduction
1Thisisanappealagainsttheawardofdamagesmadebythejudgeinthecourtbelow(theJudge)infavour
oftherespondent,JurongTownCorporation(JTC),forfraudulentmisrepresentationsonthepartofthe
appellant,WishingStarLimited(WSL)(seeWishingStarLtdvJurongTownCorp[2007]SGHC128).TheCourt
ofAppeal,inJurongTownCorpvWishingStarLtd(No2)[2005]3SLR283(WishingStar(No2)),had
previouslydeterminedtheissueofliabilityinfavourofJTCandhadorderedWSLtopaydamagestobe
assessed.Pursuanttothatdecision,JTCproceededtohaveitsdamagesassessed.TheJudgefoundlargelyin
favourofJTCandallowedthebulkofitsclaims.
2Attheheartofthisappealliesacrucialquestion:WhatlossesdidJTCsufferasaresultofthefraudulent
misrepresentationsbyWSL?However,evenbeforethisquestionarisesfordetermination,whatisimplicitly(and
necessarily)assumedisthatanothermorefundamentalquestionviz,whetherJTChassufficientlyprovedits
losseshasalreadybeenansweredintheaffirmative.Itisacardinalrequirementinthelawofdamagesthatthe
plaintiffmustproveitslossbeforeitmaybeawardeddamagesforthesame.
Background
3Thefactsgivingrisetotheappealarenotindisputeandcanbebrieflystated.JTCwastodevelopalarge
researchcomplexhousingkeybiomedicalresearchinstitutesandbiotechnologicalcompanies(theBiopolis).
TheBiopoliswastocompriseseventowerblocksaswellasthreebasementlevels,andthevisionwasforit,
whencompleted,tobeaworldclassbiomedicalsciencesresearchanddevelopmenthubinSingapore.There
wasgreaturgencyinthisproject(theProject)asvariousothergovernmentswerevyingatthattimetopromote
theirrespectivecountriesassuchahub.Asaresult,theBiopoliswastobedevelopedonafasttrackbasis.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/lawsofsingapore/caselaw/freelaw/courtofappealjudgments/13411wishingstarltdvjurongtowncorp20082sl
1/12
1/23/2016
Thismeantthatitsdevelopmentwastobecompletedwithin19monthsinsteadofthe30monthsthataprojectof
suchasizewouldnormallyrequire.
4ThemaincontractwaseventuallyawardedtoSamsungCorporation(EngineeringandConstructionGroup)
(Samsung).Oneimportantfacetoftheconstructionworkscomprisedthedesign,supply,deliveryand
installationofcurtainwallingandcladdingsystemsfortheseventowerblocks(thefaadeworks).Thefaade
worksweretobeawardedbyJTCtoanominatedsubcontractorthisentailedJTCnominatingorselectinga
subcontractor,afterwhichSamsung,asthemaincontractor,wouldbeobligedtoenterintoacontractforthe
faadeworkswiththenominatedsubcontractorandwouldberesponsibleforthelattersperformanceofthat
contract.Therewas,however,acaveattothisarrangement:Samsungcouldvoiceanyvalidobjectionsto
enteringintosuchacontract.
5JTCwasassistedintheProjectbyitsconsultant,JurongConsultantsPteLtd(JCPL),whichwasawholly
ownedsubsidiaryofJTC.JCPLinvitedtendersforthefaadeworks.Thetendererswererequiredtomeetcertain
evaluationcriteriaimposedbyJTC(theevaluationcriteria)forthepurposesofshortlistingandselecting
potentialsubcontractors.Thistenderexercise(theoriginaltenderexercise)drewatotalofeightbids.Amongst
thesetendererswasWSL,whichwasacompanyregisteredinHongKongcarryingonthebusinessofafaade
claddingcontractor.
6WSLsubmitteditstenderinApril2002anditsbidof$54mwasthelowest.However,Samsungsoughtto
dissuadeJTCfromawardingWSLthecontractforthefaadeworksasit(Samsung)wasnotfamiliarwithWSL.
SamsungwasoftheviewthatWSLhadnoexperienceindoingsuchworksinSingapore.Notwithstanding
Samsungsviews,JTCawardedthecontractforthefaadeworkstoWSLon14June2002.However,Samsung
resistedenteringintoanycontractwithWSLand,hence,thecontractforthefaadeworkswasbetweenJTCand
WSLonly.Asitturnedout,JTCdidnotmakeawisedecision.
7Initsbid,WSLmadeanumberofrepresentationsofcompliancewithvariousitemsundertheevaluation
criteria.Afterthecontractforthefaadeworkswasawarded,JCPLgrewincreasinglyconcernedaboutthetruth
ofWSLsrepresentations.AfterconductingfurtherinvestigationsandinspectingWSLsfacilitiesinChina,JCPL
concludedthatWSLsrepresentationswerefalse.ItthenimmediatelysoundedthealarmtoJTC.
8On9September2002,JTCterminateditscontractwithWSL(theWSLContract)for,interalia,
misrepresentationandbreachofcontract.JTCthenengagedanewcontractor,BovisLendLease(BLL),totake
overandcompletethefaadeworks.ThetotalamounttobepaidtoBLLunderthiscontract(theBLLContract),
whichwasawardedwithoutanypublictender,was$61.81m.
9WSLsubsequentlycommencedanactionagainstJTCforvariousreliefs,includingdamagesforwrongful
termination.JTCcounterclaimedfordamagesforfraudulentmisrepresentation.Thetrialjudgetriedtheissueof
misrepresentationfirstanddecidedthatalthoughWSLwasguiltyofmisrepresentingsomefacts,JTChadnot
reliedonthemisrepresentationstoawardWSLtheWSLContract(seeWishingStarLtdvJurongTown
Corp(No2)[2005]1SLR339).ThetrialjudgefurtherfoundthatJTChadaffirmedtheWSLContractafterithad
knowledgeofWSLsmisrepresentations.
10JTCappealedagainstthetrialjudgesdecisionandsucceededbeforetheCourtofAppeal(seeWishing
Star(No2)([1]supra)).TheCourtofAppealfoundthatWSLhadindeedmadenumerousfraudulent
misrepresentations.ThecourtalsoheldthatJTChadvalidlyterminatedtheWSLContract.Itthereforefollowed
thatWSLsclaimagainstJTCforwrongfulrescissionand/orterminationnecessarilyfailed.Accordingly,theCourt
ofAppealsetasidethetrialjudgesdecisionandorderedWSLtopayJTCdamagestobeassessed.
11Intheassessmentofdamages,JTCclaimeddamagesunderthefollowingheads:
2/12
1/23/2016
(a)thesumof$7.81m,beingthedifferencebetweenthevalueoftheWSLContractandthatoftheBLLContract
(item(a))
(b)thesumof$1,036,983,beingtheexpensesincurredbyJTCasaresultofJCPLadministeringtheBLL
Contract(item(b))
(c)thesumof$18,223.97,beingtheexpensesincurredbyJTCforJCPLsthreetripstoChinatoinspectWSLs
facilities,whichtookplaceinthecourseoftheWSLContract(item(c))
(d)thesumof$313,600,beingtheexpensesincurredbyJTCasaresultofJCPLhavingtoattendtoWSLinthe
courseoftheWSLContract(item(d))
(e)thesumof$8,000,beingthecostsofengagingasurveyorforJTCsinspectionofWSLsfacilitiesinChinaon
3September2002(item(e))and
(f)thesumof$3,003,beingtheabortivecostsforsiteoccupationallicences(item(f)).
12TheJudgeallowedalloftheaboveclaims,saveforitem(b)anditem(f),viz,theclaimsforthesumsof
$1,036,983and$3,003,respectively.
13BeingdissatisfiedwiththeJudgesdecision,WSLfiledthisappeal.ItshouldbenotedthatJTCdidnotappeal
againsttheJudgesdecision.
Theissuesonappeal
14Therearetwobroadcategoriesofdamageswhichwehavetodealwithinthisappeal.Thefirstisinrelation
totheawardofdamagesof$7.81m,beingthedifferencebetweenthevalueoftheWSLContractandthatofthe
BLLContract,toJTCunderitem(a)thesecondisinrespectofwhatare,collectively,theadditionalexpenses
incurredbyJTCasaresultofWSLsfraudulentmisrepresentations,viz,item(c),item(d)anditem(e).Dealing
withthelattercategoryfirst,theonlyargumentraisedbyWSLwasthattheseexpenseshadnotbeensufficiently
provedbyJTC.WeareunabletoagreewithWSLscontention,whichwefindtobeafeeble,andultimatelyvain,
attempttoattacktheJudgesdecision.Inourjudgment,theJudgesdecisioninrespectofthiscategoryof
claimswasbothlogicalandpersuasive.Consequently,wedismisstheappealinrelationtotheJudgesawardof
damagesforitem(c),item(d)anditem(e).
15Thereis,therefore,onlyoneissuethatremainsfordeterminationinthepresentappeal,namely,theawardof
damagesof$7.81mtoJTCunderitem(a).Inparticular,whatisinissueiswhetherthesumof$7.81mwasthe
losssufferedbyJTCasaresultofthefraudulentmisrepresentationsofWSL.Itwillthereforebenecessarytoset
outbrieflythelawrelatingtofraudulentmisrepresentationfirst.
Thelawrelatingtofraudulentmisrepresentation
16Theclassicformulationofthetortoffraudulentmisrepresentationordeceitistobefoundinthejudgmentof
LordHerschellintheleadingHouseofLordsdecisionofDerryvPeek(1889)14AppCas337,wherethelearned
lawlordobservedasfollows(at374):
First,inordertosustainanactionofdeceit,theremustbeproofoffraud,andnothingshortofthatwillsuffice.
Secondly,fraudisprovedwhenitisshewnthatafalserepresentationhasbeenmade(1)knowingly,or
(2)withoutbeliefinitstruth,or(3)recklessly,carelesswhetheritbetrueorfalse.AlthoughIhavetreatedthe
secondandthirdasdistinctcases,Ithinkthethirdisbutaninstanceofthesecond,foronewhomakesa
statementundersuchcircumstancescanhavenorealbeliefinthetruthofwhathestates.Topreventafalse
statement[from]beingfraudulent,theremust,Ithink,alwaysbeanhonestbeliefinitstruth.Andthisprobably
3/12
1/23/2016
coversthewholeground,foronewhoknowinglyallegesthatwhichisfalse,hasobviouslynosuchhonestbelief.
Thirdly,iffraudbeproved,themotiveofthepersonguiltyofitisimmaterial.Itmattersnotthattherewasno
intentiontocheatorinjurethepersontowhomthestatementwasmade.
17TheprinciplesenunciatedinDerryvPeekhave,infact,beenadoptedinthelocalcontext(see,forexample,
theSingaporeHighCourtdecisionsofChopBanKhengvChopSiangHuahandLatham&Co(1925)2MC69at
71(affirmedonappeal(idat7580),althoughtheappealdidnotinvolvetheissueoffraud),BakervAsiaMotor
CoLtd[1962]MLJ425at426,MalayanMinersCo(M)LtdvLianHock&Co[19651968]SLR481at482,[7]and
485,[22],andRaiffeisenZentralbankOsterreichAGvArcherDanielsMidlandCo[2007]1SLR196at[38]see
alsothedecisionofthiscourtinPanatronPteLtdvLeeCheowLee[2001]3SLR405at[13]).
18IntheSingaporeHighCourtdecisionofNgBuayHockvTanKengHuat[1997]2SLR788,Warren
LHKhooJobserved(at[26])that[t]heessenceoffraudisdishonesty.AsLordHerschellputitinDerryv
Peekat375:
Inmyopinionmakingafalsestatementthroughwantofcarefallsfarshortof,andisaverydifferentthingfrom,
fraud,andthesamemaybesaidofafalserepresentationhonestlybelievedthoughoninsufficientgrounds.
Inasimilarvein,thelearnedlawlordlaterobservedthus(idat376):
Ithinkmischiefislikelytoresultfromblurringthedistinctionbetweencarelessnessandfraud,andequally
holdingamanfraudulentwhetherhisactscanorcannotbejustlysodesignated.
Inasimilarvein,BowenLJ,intheEnglishCourtofAppealdecisionofAngusvClifford[1891]2Ch449,
observed,inrelationtoLordHerschellsstatementinDerryvPeek(at374)onfalserepresentationswhichare
maderecklessly,carelesswhether[they]betrueorfalse(see[16]above),thus(at471):
Itseemstomethatasecondcausefromwhichafallaciousviewarisesisfromtheuseofthewordreckless.
Now,whatistheoldcommonlawdirectiontojuries?AnditisnotbecauseIthinkthatcommonlawisbetterthan
equitythatIgobacktoitbutitisbecauseanactionfordeceitisacommonlawactiontheolddirection,time
outofmind,wasthis,didheknowthatthestatementwasfalse,washeconsciouswhenhemadeitthatitwas
false,orifnot,didhemakeitwithoutknowingwhetheritwasfalse,andwithoutcaring?Notcaring,inthat
context,didnotmeannottakingcare,itmeantindifferencetothetruth,themoralobliquitywhichconsists[of]a
wilfuldisregardoftheimportanceoftruth[emphasisadded]
19Ascertainingthenatureoffraudulentmisrepresentationordeceitis,infact,ofthefirstimportance.Thisis
becauseanumberofconsequencesflowfromthis,oneofwhichisofdirectrelevancetothefactsofthepresent
appeal.
20Thefirstconsequence,whichisnotrelevanttothepresentappealbecausefraudulentmisrepresentationhas
alreadybeenprovedandtheonlyissueisthatofthequantumofdamagestobeawarded,relatestothestandard
ofproof.Thisisnotaneasyissue,straddling,asitdoes,thecriminalaswellasthecivilstandardsofproof.
Thereare,infact,anumberofcasestakinganumberofpositions(foranoverviewaswellasananalysisofthe
variouscasesandarguments,seethedecisionofthiscourtinTangYokeKhengvLek
Benedict[2005]3SLR263andtheSingaporeHighCourtdecisionofChuaKweeChen,LimKahNeeandLim
ChahInvKohChoonChin[2006]3SLR469at[11][39]).Wearenotrequiredtodealwiththisparticularissuein
thisappealbecause,asjustmentioned,itisnotbeforeus.Wethereforeproceedtoconsiderthesecond
consequence,whichisofdirectrelevancetothepresentappeal.
21Thesecondconsequenceconcernsthescopeorextentofdamagesthatcanbeawardedinthecontextof
fraudulentmisrepresentation,assumingthatboththemisrepresentation(s)ofthisnatureandthedamagealleged
4/12
1/23/2016
canbeproved.Embeddedinthisquestionaretwocloselyrelatedmatters.Thefirstisembodiedinthelastpart
ofthequestion.Itrelatestoarequirementthatisbynomeanspeculiaronlytoclaimsbasedonfraudulent
misrepresentation.Indeed,itisageneralrequirementthatmustbesatisfiedeachtimedamagesaresoughtbya
plaintiff.Anditisthattheplaintiffmustproveitsloss.Asmentionedinarecentdecisionofthiscourt,this
requirementissoobviousthatitisrarelymentionedexpressly(seeRobertsonQuayInvestmentPteLtdvSteen
ConsultantsPteLtd[2008]2SLR623at[27]).Thesecondmatterisembodiedinthefirstpartofthequestion
forwhichtheleadingauthorityistheHouseofLordsdecisionofSmithNewCourtSecuritiesLtdvCitibank
NA[1997]AC254(SmithNewCourt).Thisparticulardecisionreaffirmedthegeneralprinciplethatdamagesfor
fraudulentmisrepresentationwouldincludealllossthatfloweddirectlyasaresultoftheentrybytheplaintiff(in
relianceuponthefraudulentmisrepresentation)intothetransactioninquestion,regardlessofwhetherornotsuch
losswasforeseeable,andwouldincludeallconsequentiallossaswell.Wesayreaffirmedbecausethis
principleis,infact,notaradicaloneandisalsoembodiedwithintheoftcitedEnglishCourtofAppealdecision
ofDoylevOlby(Ironmongers)Ltd[1969]2QB158(Doyle).InSmithNewCourtitself,LordBrowneWilkinson
succinctlysummarisedthebasicguidelinesondamagesforfraudulentmisrepresentation(inthecontextofthat
particularcase,whichconcernedthepurchaseofshares),asfollows(at266267):
Insum,inmyjudgmentthefollowingprinciplesapplyinassessingthedamagespayablewheretheplaintiffhas
beeninducedbyafraudulentmisrepresentationtobuyproperty:(1)thedefendantisboundtomakereparationfor
allthedamagedirectlyflowingfromthetransaction(2)althoughsuchdamageneednothavebeenforeseeable,it
musthavebeendirectlycausedbythetransaction(3)inassessingsuchdamage,theplaintiffisentitledto
recoverbywayofdamagesthefullpricepaidbyhim,buthemustgivecreditforanybenefitswhichhehas
receivedasaresultofthetransaction(4)asageneralrule,thebenefitsreceivedby[theplaintiff]includethe
marketvalueofthepropertyacquiredasatthedateofacquisitionbutsuchgeneralruleisnottobeinflexibly
appliedwheretodosowouldpreventhim[from]obtainingfullcompensationforthewrongsuffered(5)although
thecircumstancesinwhichthegeneralruleshouldnotapplycannotbecomprehensivelystated,itwillnormally
notapplywhereeither(a)themisrepresentationhascontinuedtooperateafterthedateoftheacquisitionofthe
assetsoastoinducetheplaintifftoretaintheassetor(b)thecircumstancesofthecasearesuchthatthe
plaintiffis,byreasonofthefraud,lockedintotheproperty.(6)Inaddition,theplaintiffisentitledto
recoverconsequentiallossescausedbythetransaction(7)theplaintiffmusttakeallreasonablestepsto
mitigatehislossoncehehasdiscoveredthefraud.[emphasisadded]
22Referencemay,inasimilarvein,alsobemadetothejudgmentofLordSteyninSmithNewCourt,asfollows
(at281282):
ThelogicofthedecisioninDoylev.Olby(Ironmongers)Ltd.justifiesthefollowingpropositions.(1)Theplaintiffin
anactionfordeceitisnotentitledtobecompensatedinaccordancewiththecontractualmeasureofdamage,i.e.
thebenefitofthebargainmeasure.Heisnotentitledtobeprotectedinrespectofhispositiveinterestinthe
bargain.(2)Theplaintiffinanactionfordeceitis,however,entitledtobecompensatedinrespectofhisnegative
interest.Theaimistoputtheplaintiffintothepositionhewouldhavebeeninifnofalserepresentationhadbeen
made.(3)Thepracticaldifferencebetweenthetwomeasureswaslucidlyexplainedinacontemporarycasenote
onDoylev.Olby(Ironmongers)Ltd.:G.H.Treitel,DamagesforDeceit(1969)32M.L.R.556,558559.The
authorsaid:
Iftheplaintiff'sbargainwouldhavebeenabadone,evenontheassumptionthattherepresentationwastrue,he
willdobestunderthetortiousmeasure.If,ontheassumptionthattherepresentationwastrue,hisbargainwould
havebeenagoodone,hewilldobestunderthefirstcontractualmeasure(underwhichhemayrecover
somethingeveniftheactualvalueofwhathehasrecoveredisgreaterthantheprice).
(4)Concentratingonthetortmeasure,theremotenesstest[of]whetherthelosswasreasonablyforeseeablehad
beenauthoritativelylaiddowninTheWagonMoundinrespectofthetortofnegligenceafewyears
5/12
1/23/2016
beforeDoylev.Olby(Ironmongers)Ltd.wasdecided:OverseasTankship(U.K.)Ltd.v.MortsDock&Engineering
Co.Ltd.(TheWagonMound)[1961]A.C.388.Doylev.Olby(Ironmongers)Ltd.settledthatawidertestapplies
inanactionfordeceit.(5)Thedictainallthreejudgments,aswellastheactualcalculationofdamages
inDoylev.Olby(Ironmongers)Ltd.,makeclearthatthevictimofthefraudisentitledtocompensationforallthe
actuallossdirectlyflowingfromthetransactioninducedbythewrongdoer.Thatincludesheadsofconsequential
loss.(6)Significantlyinthepresentcontexttheruleinthepreviousparagraphisnottiedtoanyprocessof
valuationatthedateofthetransaction.Itissquarelybasedontheoverridingcompensatoryprinciple,widenedin
viewofthefraudtocoveralldirectconsequences.Thelegalmeasureistocomparethepositionoftheplaintiff
asitwasbeforethefraudulentstatementwasmadetohimwithhispositionasitbecameasaresultofhis
relianceonthefraudulentstatement.
[emphasisadded]
23ThedecisioninSmithNewCourtwasconcerned,infact,withthenatureoffraudulentmisrepresentation(in
termsoftheelementofdeceitwhichsuchmisrepresentationnecessarilyinvolves).Itwillbeimmediatelyseen
thatthepotentialamountofdamagesawardableforafraudulentmisrepresentationexceedseventhatawardable
foranegligentmisrepresentation(pursuanttotheseminalHouseofLordsdecisionofHedleyByrne&CoLtdv
Heller&PartnersLtd[1964]AC465).Inparticular,damagesawardedwithrespecttoanegligent
misrepresentationareconstrainedbythedoctrineofremotenessofdamage(asmanifestedintheconceptof
reasonableforeseeability,astowhich,seetheleadingPrivyCouncildecisionofOverseasTankship(UK)Ltdv
MortsDock&EngineeringCoLtd(TheWagonMound)[1961]AC388).However,aswehaveseeninthe
precedingparagraph,damagesawardedwithrespecttoafraudulentmisrepresentationarenotsubjecttosucha
constraint,andarerecoverableeveniftheyarenotreasonablyforeseeable.Thereasonsforthiswereelaborated
uponinsomedetailinSmithNewCourtitself.
24InSmithNewCourt,LordSteynveryhelpfullyelaborateduponthereasonsforadoptingastricterapproach
(visvisthefraudster)withrespecttofraudulentmisrepresentationasfollows:[f]irstitservesadeterrent
purposeindiscouragingfraud(at279)and[s]econdly,asbetweenthefraudsterandtheinnocentparty,moral
considerationsmilitateinfavourofrequiringthefraudstertobeartheriskofmisfortunesdirectlycausedbyhis
fraud(at280).Thislastmentionedreasonis,ofcourse,whollyconsistentwiththemoregeneralpropositionthat
thecourtis,inthesphereofvitiatingfactors,preeminentlyconcernedwithargumentsoffairness.Indeed,
LordSteynproceededtostatethus(ibid):
Imakenoapologyforreferringtomoralconsiderations.Thelawandmoralityareinextricablyinterwoven.Toa
largeextentthelawissimplyformulatedanddeclaredmorality.And,asOliverWendellHolmes,TheCommon
Law(ed.M.DeW.Howe,p.106)observed,theverynotionofdeceitwithitsovertonesofwickednessisdrawn
fromthemoralworld.
Referencemayalsobemade,inthisregard,totheobservationsofBowenLJinAngusvClifford([18]supra)
asreproducedaboveat[18].Finally,andinarelatedvein,itoughtalsotobenotedthatthe(separate)
requirementofmitigationofdamage(see,forexample,SmithNewCourtat264,267and285)likewisereflects
therequirementoffairnessinthisinstance,tothedefendant.
25Doyle([21]supra)has,infact,beenadoptedinseverallocaldecisions(see,forexample,theSingaporeHigh
CourtdecisionofVitaHealthLaboratoriesPteLtdvPangSengMeng[2004]4SLR162(VitaHealth
Laboratories),especiallyat[91]seealsotheMalaysiandecisionsofLetchemyArumuganv
NAnnamalay[1982]2MLJ199at202,TayThoBokvSegarOilPalmEstateSdnBhd[1996]3MLJ181at208
(reversedbytheMalaysianCourtofAppealinSegarOilPalmEstateSdnBhdvTayThoBok[1997]3MLJ211,
butnot,apparently,inrespectofthelowercourtsadoptionoftheprincipleslaiddowninDoyle),MagnumFinance
BerhadvTanAhPoi[1997]3AMR2265at2282,andSimThongRealtySdnBhdvTehKimDar@Tee
6/12
1/23/2016
Kim[2003]3MLJ460at468).
26Moreimportantly,perhaps,SmithNewCourt([21]supra)hasalsobeencitedwithapprovalinanumberof
Singaporedecisionswithregardtotheissueofrecoveryofalldirect(includingconsequential)lossflowingfrom
thetransactionthatwasenteredintoasaresultofafraudulentmisrepresentation,evenifsuchlosswasnot
reasonablyforeseeable(see,forexample,theSingaporeHighCourtdecisionsofVitaHealthLaboratoriesat[91]
[93]andCHSCPOGmbHvVikasGoel[2005]3SLR202at[60]).Inparticular,thefollowingobservationsby
VKRajahJCbearnoting(seeVitaHealthLaboratoriesat[91][93]):
91Wherefraudordeceitisexposed,thelawpragmaticallyattemptstocutthroughthethicketoffactsand
remedythewrongbyrestorationofthestatusquo.Fraudresultsinthetortfeasorbeingresponsibleforallthe
consequencesthatdirectlyensueinitswake:DoylevOlby(Ironmongers)Ltd[1969]2QB158(Doyle).In
claimsinvolvingfraud,damagesarenotrestrainedbyforeseeabilityperse.Theintentiontoinjurenegativesthis
limitingfactor.Thetortfeasorisinexorablyresponsibleforalllossesthatdirectlyflowfromthetort.
LordDenningMRterselyobservedinDoyle(at167),itdoesnotlieinthemouthofthefraudulentpersontosay
thattheycouldnothavebeenforeseen.Thelegitimacyofthisapproachisclearlybeyondreproachafterthe
illuminatinganalysisundertakenbytheHouseofLordsinSmithNewCourtSecuritiesvCitibankNA[1997]
AC254TherationaleforconsideringfrauddifferentlywasalsohelpfullysummarisedbyLordSteynin[Smith
NewCourt]at279280:
Thatbringsmetothequestionofpolicy[asto]whetherthereisajustificationfordifferentiatingbetweenthe
extentofliabilityforcivilwrongsdependingonwhereintheslidingscalefromstrictliabilitytointentional
wrongdoing,theparticularcivilwrongfitsin.[I]tisarationalanddefensiblestrategytoimposewiderliabilityon
anintentionalwrongdoer.Suchapolicyofimposingmorestringentremediesonanintentionalwrongdoer
servestwopurposes.Firstitservesadeterrentpurposeindiscouragingfraud.Andinthebattleagainstfraud
civilremediescanplayausefulandbeneficialrole.Secondly,asbetweenafraudsterandtheinnocentparty,
moralconsiderationsmilitateinfavourofrequiringthefraudstertobeartherisksofmisfortunesdirectlycaused
byhisfraud.Thelawandmoralityareinextricablyinterwoven.Toalargeextentthelawissimplyformulated
anddeclaredmorality.And,asOliverWendellHolmes,TheCommonLaw(ed.M.DeW.Howe),p.106,observed,
theverynotionofdeceitwithitsovertonesorwickednessisdrawnfromthemoralworld...
92IrespectfullyagreewithLordSteynsviews,whichalsohadthegeneralendorsementofLordsBrowne
Wilkinson,Mustill,KeithofKinkelandSlynnofHadley.Herejectedasfartoonarrowaviewthecontentionthat
theonlypurposeofthelawoftortshouldbetocompensate,byrecognisingandemphasisingtheintentional
elementinfraud.Hetookpainstostresstheimportanceofdeterrenceasapolicyconsiderationinassessing
damagesforfraud.Intentionaltortsarerightlysingledoutforspecialconsideration.
93Itisthereforetritelawthataclaimantcanrecoverallthedirectlossesfromafraudulentlyinduced
transaction.Thisencompassesconsequentiallosses.Theorthodoxviewthatdamagesoughttobeassessedby
particularreferencetoatransactiondatewasalsodemolishedinSmith[NewCourt]infavourofaflexible
approachthatrecognises(at284)that:
thecourtisentitledsimplytoassessthelossflowingdirectlyfromthetransactionwithoutanyreferenceto
anyparticulardatewherevertheoverridingcompensatoryrulerequiresit.
Thetrueprincipleistojustlycompensatetheclaimantforallfinanciallossesand/ordamagesflowingdirectly
fromthefraud.Valuationisonemethod.Addinguptheimmediateandconsequentiallossesisanother.InSmith
[NewCourt],LordBrowneWilkinson(at266and267)postulatedseveralconsiderationsthatcouldbetakeninto
accountinassessinglossesordamagesforfraudulentmisrepresentationinthepurchaseofproperty.While
theseconsiderationsarehelpful,theyshouldnotbeapplieddogmatically.Inassessingdamagesforfraud,a
7/12
1/23/2016
mechanicalapproachistobeeschewedinfavourofflexibility.Themultifaceteddimensionsoffraudrequire
pragmatismandmalleabilityfromthecourtinfashioningtheappropriateremedy.Creativeaccountingmayrequire
creativeremedies.Whilethedeterrentfactormaysometimesbecloakedinanawardofdamages,itshouldnot
beforgotten.
[emphasisinoriginal]
27ThescopeofrecoveryofdamagesforfraudulentmisrepresentationassetoutinbothDoyleandSmithNew
Courtisverybroad.ThequestionwehavetodecideinthisappealiswhetherJTChasprovedthatthesumof
$7.81mclaimedunderitem(a)islossflowingdirectlyfromWSLsfraudulentmisrepresentations.Forthis
purpose,wemustturntotherelevantfactsinthepresentcase.
28However,beforeproceedingtodoso,one(moregeneral)pointneedstobenotedbecauseitwillalsofigurein
ourapplicationoftherelevantlawtothefactsofthisappeal.Thepointisastraightforwardoneandrelatestothe
differentobjectivesofawardingdamagesincontractandintort,respectively.Indeed,itisyetanotherspecific
distinctionunderlyingthemoregeneraldifferencebetweencontractontheonehandandtortontheother.Andit
iseffectivelyputinaleadingtextbook,asfollows(seeEdwinPeel,TreitelonTheLawofContract(Sweet&
Maxwell,12thEd,2007)atpara20018):
Theobjectofdamagesforbreachofcontractistoputthevictimsofarasmoneycandoitinthesame
situationasifthecontracthadbeenperformed[citingtheleadingdecisionofRobinsonvHarman(1848)1Ex
850at855154ER363at365].Inotherwords,thevictimisentitledtobecompensatedforthelossofhis
bargain,sothathisexpectationsarisingoutoforcreatedbythecontractareprotected.Thisprotectionof
thevictimsexpectationsmustbecontrastedwiththeprincipleonwhichdamagesareawardedintort:the
purposeofsuchdamagesissimplytoputthevictimintothepositioninwhichhewouldhavebeen,ifthe
torthadnotbeencommitted.Ofcourse,inmanytortactionsthevictimcanrecoverdamagesforlossof
expectations:e.g.forlossofexpectedearningssufferedasaresultofpersonalinjury,orforlossofexpected
profitssufferedasaresultofdamagetoaprofitearningthing.Buttheseexpectationsexistquiteindependently
ofthetortiousconductwhichimpairsthem:itisthenatureofmosttortstodestroyorimpairexpectationsofthis
kind,ratherthantocreatenewones.Tortiousmisrepresentationdoes,indeed,createnewexpectations,but
thepurposeofdamagesevenforthattortistoputthevictimintothepositioninwhichhewouldhave
been,ifthemisrepresentationhadnotbeenmade,andnottoprotecthisexpectationsbyputtinghiminto
thepositioninwhichhewouldhavebeen,iftherepresentationhadbeentrue.Suchdamagesmaybe
awardedinrespectoflosseswhichthevictimcouldhaveavoidedifhehadbeentoldthetruth,andhereagain
thereisasenseinwhichthevictimwillrecoverdamagesforlossofachance,butitisthechanceofavoiding
lossratherthanthatofmakingaprofitforwhichhewillbecompensated.Hemayevenbecompensatedforloss
ofprofitifthetortimpairsexpectationswhichexistindependentlyofit.InEastvMaurer[[1991]1WLR461]the
claimantwasinterestedinbuyingahairdressingsalonandwasinducedtobuyonebelongingtothedefendantby
thelattersfraudulentrepresentation.Itwasheldthattheclaimantcouldrecover(interalia)damagesinrespect
ofanothersuchbusinessinwhichhewouldhaveinvestedhismoneyiftherepresentationhadnotbeenmade,
butnottheprofitswhichhewouldhavemadeoutofthedefendantsbusiness,iftherepresentationrelatingtoit
hadbeentrue.Inacontractualaction,ontheotherhand,damagesarerecoverableasamatterofcourseforloss
oftheexpectationscreatedbytheverycontractforbreachofwhichtheactionisbrought.Thatiswhydamages
ofthiskindarethedistinctivefeatureofacontractualaction.[emphasisaddedinbolditalics]
Seealso,inasimilarvein,HarveyMcGregor,McGregoronDamages(Sweet&Maxwell,17thEd,2003)at
paras4100241006ChittyonContracts(HGBealegened)(Sweet&Maxwell,29thEd,2004)atpara6
051ButterworthsCommonLawSeries:TheLawofContract(MichaelFurmstongened)(LexisNexisUK,2ndEd,
2003)atpara4.62Clerk&LindsellonTorts(AnthonyMDugdalegened)(Sweet&Maxwell,19thEd,2006)at
paras18381839andJohnCartwright,Misrepresentation,MistakeandNonDisclosure(Sweet&Maxwell,
8/12
1/23/2016
2ndEd,2007)atpara5.35.ReferencemayalsobemadetotheobservationsofLordSteyninSmithNew
Court([21]supra)at281282(seethepassagequotedaboveat[22],especiallypropositions(1)and(2)therein),
aswellastheobservationsofLordDenningMRinDoyle([21]supra),wherethelearnedMasteroftheRolls
observedthus(at167):
Onprinciplethedistinctionseemstobethis:incontract,thedefendanthasmadeapromiseandbrokenit.The
objectofdamagesistoputtheplaintiffinasgoodaposition,asfarasmoneycandoit,asifthepromisehad
beenperformed.Infraud,thedefendanthasbeenguiltyofadeliberatewrongbyinducingtheplaintifftoacttohis
detriment.Theobjectofdamagesistocompensatetheplaintiffforallthelosshehassuffered,sofar,again,as
moneycandoit.Incontract,thedamagesarelimitedtowhatmayreasonablybesupposedtohavebeeninthe
contemplationoftheparties.Infraud,theyarenotsolimited.Thedefendantisboundtomakereparationforall
theactualdamagesdirectlyflowingfromthefraudulentinducement.Thepersonwhohasbeendefraudedis
entitledtosay:
Iwouldnothaveenteredintothisbargainatallbutforyourrepresentation.Owingtoyourfraud,Ihavenotonly
lostallthemoneyIpaidyou,but,whatismore,Ihavebeenputtoalargeamountofextraexpenseaswelland
sufferedthisorthatextradamages.
Allsuchdamagescanberecovered:anditdoesnotlieinthemouthofthefraudulentpersontosaythatthey
couldnotreasonablyhavebeenforeseen.
OurdecisionontheJudgesawardofdamagesof$7.81mforitem(a)
29Aswementionedabove(at[14]),weagreewiththeJudgewithregardtothedamageswhichheawardedin
respectofitem(c),item(d)anditem(e).Thisleavestheclaimunderitem(a)forthesumof$7.81m,which
constitutedthedifferencebetweenthevalueoftheWSLContractandthatoftheBLLContract.Anditistothis
particularheadofdamagethatourattentionmustnowturn.Indeed,forthereasonjustmentioned,itwillbethe
principalfocusofthepresentjudgment.Therestofthejudgmentofthecourtbelowisconsequentlyaffirmedfor
thereasonsstatedtherein.
30Turning,first,tothequestionofwhetherornotJTChasfurnishedsufficientprooforevidenceoftheloss
claimedunderitem(a),itisourviewthatit(unfortunately)hasnot.Letuselaborate.
31JTCscaseisthat,asaresultofWSLsfraudulentmisrepresentationsandthesubsequentrescissionofthe
WSLContract,JTChadtotakethenecessarystepstoengageBLLandthiswasdoneatasubstantiallyhigher
price$7.81mhigher,tobeprecise.ItwillberecalledthattheJudgeagreedwithJTCandawardedthissumto
it.Itisimportant,atthisjuncture,toascertainhowthisamountwasarrivedat.
32ItwillberecalledthatthesumpayablebyJTCundertheWSLContractwas$54m.ThesumpayablebyJTC
undertheBLLContract,ontheotherhand,was$61.81mhence,thedifferenceof$7.81mthatformedthebasis
ofJTCsclaimunderitem(a).
33Beforeproceedingtoapplythegeneralprinciplesoflawsetoutintheprecedingpartofthisjudgment,a
further(andimportant)setoffactsoughttobenoted.ThissetoffactscentresnotonlyontheWSLContractand
theBLLContract,butalsoontheotherrelevantbidswhichJTCcouldhaveaccepted(insteadofenteringintothe
BLLContract).
34TheWSLContractwasenteredintobyWSLandJTCon14June2002andwasterminatedbyJTCon
9September2002.TheBLLContractwasenteredintobyJTCandBLLon9October2002.
35TheprecedingparagraphreflectstherelevanttimeframesinsofarastheWSLContractandtheBLL
9/12
1/23/2016
Contractareconcerned.AsimportantiswhathappenedduringtheperiodjustbeforetheawardoftheWSL
Contract(on14June2002)andjustbeforetheawardoftheBLLContract(on9October2002),respectively.
Indeed,anunderstandingoftherelevantfacts(and,wemightadd,therespectivebidssubmitted)duringthese
twoperiodswill,asweshallsee,haveadecisiveimpactontheissueofwhetherornotJTChassufficiently
provedthatithadindeedsufferedalossof$7.81masdirectlossflowingfromtheWSLContractwhichitentered
intoasaresultofWSLsfraudulentmisrepresentations.
36Turning,then,totherelevantfactsinquestionand,inparticular,totheperiodjustbeforetheawardofthe
WSLContract,itshouldbenotedthat,intheoriginaltenderexercise,therewere(inadditiontoWSLsbid)other
bidsaswell(WSLhavingsubmittedthelowestbid).Amongstthese,thenextlowestbid,whichwassubmittedby
SBFaadePteLtd(SBFaade),wasinthesumof$54,071,488(itwillberecalledthatthesumof$54m,as
submittedinWSLsbid,ultimatelyconstitutedthecontractpriceundertheWSLContract).Whatisofcrucial
significance,however,isthefactthatJTCdidnotgiveanyconsiderationtoSBFaadesbidbecauseofitspast
experiencewiththecompany(apointwhichcounselforJTCconfirmedduringtheoralhearingbeforethiscourt).
Accordingly,SBFaadesbidwasirrelevantforthepurposeofdeterminingJTCslosses.Hence,thenextlowest
bidafterthebidssubmittedbyWSLandbySBFaadewasthatsubmittedbyLiangHuatAluminiumIndustries
PteLtd(LiangHuat)inthevalueof$63,458,706.WhatthisscenariomeantwasthatifWSLhadnevertendered
forthecontractforthefaadeworksintheoriginaltenderexercise,JTCwouldhavebeenleftwithLiangHuats
bidas,ineffect,thelowestbidthatwasavailableforacceptance,SBFaadesbidhavingbeenruledoutrightat
theoutset.And,takingintoaccountthattheProjecthadtobecompletedonanurgentbasis,itisreasonableto
inferthatJTCwouldhaveacceptedLiangHuatsbidinsteadofcallingfornewbids(which,exhypothesi,there
wouldhavebeennoreasontodo).
37Therefore,thelongandshortofitisthat,ontheevidencebeforethecourt,WSLsbidwasthelowestoverall.
NoothertendererwasshowntohavesubmittedabidatanamountthatwasevenclosetothevalueofWSLs
bid(whichbidwasacceptedbyJTC,culminatingintheWSLContract).Forthesakeofcompleteness,andfor
theavoidanceofdoubt,weshoulddealbrieflywithanotherbid(orquotation,giventhattherewasnoconsensus
betweenthepartiesonhowthisfigurewastobecharacterised)ofapproximately$57.5mbyBLL.
38On23August2002(evenbeforeterminatingtheWSLContract),JTChadinvitedBLL,Samsungand
DiethelmIndustriesPteLtd(Diethelm)tosubmitquotationsforthefaadeworks(theAugust2002exercise).
Wepausetonotethattherewassomedisagreementbetweenthepartiesastowhetherthiswasaninvitationto
tenderforthefaadeworksormerelyaninvitationtotheabovecontractorstoprovidequotationsforthesame.
JTCsposition,whichitmaintaineduptothepresentappealandduringthecourseoftheoralhearingbeforethis
court,wasthatitwasthelatter,viz,theAugust2002exercisewasapreliminaryquotationexercise.Eitherway,
thisdisagreementastothenatureoftheAugust2002exercise,whichinitiallyaroseinthecontextoftheissueof
mitigationofloss,ultimatelydidnotprovetobeofanysignificance,asweshallexplainshortly.On28August
2002,BLLsubmittedaquotationof$57,500,008,whilstSamsungsubmittedanindicativepriceofapproximately
$65mto$85m.Diethelm,ontheotherhand,onlywantedtoundertakeeitherthefirstphaseorthesecondphase
ofthefaadeworks,andthereforesubmittedseparatequotationsforeachphase(tothevalueof$23,439,109
and$34.5m,respectively).ItshouldbenotedthatwhilstBLLsubmittedaninitialquotationofapproximately
$57.5m,itwasultimatelyawardedthenewcontractforthefaadeworks(pursuanttotheBLLContract)
for$61.81m(whichwastheamountstatedinthebidsubsequentlysubmittedbyBLLpursuanttotheinvitationto
tenderof13September2002(the13September2002tenderexercise),whichinvitationhadalsobeensentto
fiveothercompanies,includingSamsungandDiethelm(seebelowat[39])).WhethertheAugust2002exercise
wasforthepurposeofinvitingquotationsortenders,theincontrovertiblefactisthatBLLhaditselfsubsequently
putinahigherbidof$61.81mpursuanttothe13September2002tenderexercise(which,liketheoriginaltender
exercise,relatedtothefaadeworks),anditwaspursuanttothatbidthatBLLwasultimatelyawardedthenew
contractforthefaadeworks(viatheBLLContract).Inotherwords,eveniftheAugust2002exercisehad
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/lawsofsingapore/caselaw/freelaw/courtofappealjudgments/13411wishingstarltdvjurongtowncorp20082
10/12
1/23/2016
attractedproperbidswhichwerecapableofbeingacceptedbyJTC,JTChadnotacceptedanyofthosebids
(and,inparticular,thebidofapproximately$57.5msubmittedbyBLL).Thesalientpointtohighlightisthatthis
bidofapproximately$57.5m,evenifitwereconsideredtobeclosetoWSLsbidof$54m,clearlycouldnotbe
heldtobeindicativeofthepricesofthebidsthatwerebeingmadeattherelevantperiodoftime(ie,atthetime
oftheoriginaltenderexercise).
39Aswehaveseen,JTCterminatedtheWSLContracton9September2002.Thereafter,on13September
2002,JTC(throughJCPL)invitedsixcompanies,viathe13September2002tenderexercise,tobidforthe
faadeworks(thesecompaniesincluded(inadditiontoSamsung,DiethelmandBLL)MEROAsiaPteLtd,
FacadeMasterPteLtd/CompactMetalIndustriesLtdandPermasteelisaPacificHoldingsLtd).Thetenderperiod
wasforthreedays(from13September2002to16September2002).OnlyBLL,SamsungandDiethelmhad,in
fact,receivedpriornoticeoftheinvitationtotender.And,ultimately,onlyBLLandSamsungtenderedforthe
faadeworkswithbidsof$61.81mand$88m,respectively.Aswehavealreadynoted,thenewcontractforthe
faadeworkswas,ontherecommendationofJCPL,awardedtoBLLon9October2002for$61.81m(resultingin
theformationoftheBLLContract).
40HavingregardtotheentirebackdropagainstwhichboththeWSLContractandtheBLLContractwere
concluded,itisclearthat:
(a)withrespecttotheoriginaltenderexercise,JTCcouldnotinrealityhaveacceptedanybidbelowthatof
$63,458,706submittedbyLiangHuatand
(b)withrespecttotheAugust2002exerciseandthe13September2002tenderexercise(theformer,aspointed
outat[38]above,possiblybeing,infact,amerepreliminaryquotationexercise),thelowestbid(ie,that
submittedbyBLL)wasbelowtheaforementionedbidof$63,458,706.
Accordingly,itwasnotpossibleforJTCtomaintaintheargumentthatthedifferencebetweenthevalueofthe
WSLContractandthatoftheBLLContract(whichdifference,aswehaveseen,amountedto$7.81m)wasloss
thatfloweddirectlyfromthetransactionenteredintoasaresultofWSLsfraudulentmisrepresentations.As
LordHoffmannpertinentlypointedout(albeitbywayofobiterdicta)inthecontextoffraudulentmisrepresentation
intheHouseofLordsdecisionofSouthAustraliaAssetManagementCorporationvYorkMontagueLtd[1997]
AC191at216,[t]hedefendantisclearlynotliableforlosseswhichtheplaintiffwouldhavesufferedevenifhe
hadnotenteredintothetransaction.
41AscounselforWSL,MrTanLiamBeng(MrTan),pointedout,BLLsbidof$61.81m(duringthe
13September2002tenderexercise)was,infact,lowerthanthebidwhichconstituted,effectively,thenext
lowestbidintheoriginaltenderexercise(comparedtothebidsubmittedbyWSL,whichwasacceptedbyJTC,
thusresultingintheformationoftheWSLContract)viz,thebidof$63,458,706byLiangHuat(seeaboveat
[36]).AsMrTanemphasised,ifWSLhadnotmadethefraudulentmisrepresentationsinquestion(ie,ifWSLhad
notsubmitteditsbid),JTCwould,inanyevent,havehadtoacceptabidpitchedatasumhigherthanthevalue
ofthebidwhichresultedintheBLLContract(ie,BLLsbidof$61.81minthe13September2002tenderexercise)
asJTCwouldhavebeenleftwithnoalternativebuttoacceptLiangHuatsbidof$63,458,706intheoriginal
tenderexercise.Inthisregard,itbearsrepeatingthatthebidsubmittedbySBFaade(whichwasforalower
sum)intheoriginaltenderexercisewasnotevenconsideredbyJTC(seeaboveat[36]).
42Itisimportanttoemphasisethatnothingthatwehavestatedthusfardetractsfromtheundesirablenatureof
fraudandtheresultinglegalprinciple(embodiedinbothDoyle([21]supra)and,morerecently,SmithNew
Court([21]supra))centringontherecoverabilityofalldirectloss(includingconsequentialloss)flowingfromthe
transactionwhichwasenteredintoinrelianceuponthefraud(evenifsuchlosswasnotforeseeable).However,
onthefactsofthisparticularappeal,JTChasnotmetthethresholdrequirementoffurnishingsufficientproofor
11/12
1/23/2016
evidence,onabalanceofprobabilities,ofthelossclaimedunderitem(a)inthefirstinstance.
43WealsonotethatthedamagesawardedbytheJudgeunderthishead(viz,item(a))was,literally,the
differencebetweenthevalueoftheWSLContractandthatoftheBLLContract.Inotherwords,theJudgeapplied
whatwas,insubstance,thecontractualmeasureofdamagesinwhatwasessentiallyatortiouscontext(here,
thatrelatingtofraudulentmisrepresentation).Aswehavealreadynotedabove(at[28]),thereoughtnottobea
conflationofthedamagesawardedincontractandintort,respectively,astheawardofdamagesineachof
thesespheresservesadifferentpurpose.Itistruethattherecouldbeacoincidenceinquantumbetweenthe
contractualandthetortiousmeasuresofdamages,dependingontheprecisefactsofthecaseconcerned,
although(ashasbeenpointedoutaboveat[28]),thiswouldbemorebywayofafactualcoincidenceand
doesnotsignifyanycoincidenceinthepurposesthatthelawofcontractandthelawoftort,respectively,serve
(cftheEnglishCourtofAppealdecisionofEastvMaurer[1991]1WLR461,wheretherewas,onthefacts,a
differenceinquantumbetweenthecontractualandthetortiousmeasuresofdamages,althoughdamageswere
ultimatelyawardedbythecourtforthelostopportunity(whichconstitutedthetortiousmeasureonthefacts)as
opposedtothelostbargain(whichwasthecontractualmeasure)assuch(seealsothe(also)EnglishCourtof
AppealdecisionofClefAquitaineSARLvLaporteMaterials(Barrow)Ltd[2001]QB488at513perWardLJ)).In
anyevent,inthelightofourfindingsonthefactsofthepresentappeal,nocoincidencebetweenthequantumof
damagesrecoverableintortandthatrecoverableincontract(whetherfactualorotherwise)ispresent.
44Weshouldalsoobservethat,inthelightofourdecisionwithrespecttotheissueofproofofloss,itfollows
thatthereisnoneedforustoconsiderWSLsalternativeargumentstotheeffectthatJTChadnotmitigatedits
lossandthat,inanyevent,JTCsclaimhadtobereducedtotakeintoaccountallegeddifferencesbetweenthe
scopeofworkcoveredbytheWSLContractandthatcoveredbytheBLLContract.
45Finally,JTChadarguedthatitconstitutedanabuseofprocessforWSLtoraisethepointuponwhichthe
appealonthisparticularissue(ie,thedamagesclaimedunderitem(a))hasturnedasthelatterhadacceptedthat
thedifferencebetweenthevalueoftheWSLContractandthatoftheBLLContractwasthebasis,inprinciple,
uponwhichdamageswouldbeawarded.However,whatwasinvolvedherewastheinappropriateapplicationofa
principleoflawtothefactsofthecase.WeseenoreasonwhyWSLcouldnotraiseanargumentwhichwould
correctthis.Indeed,ithasbeenclearlyestablishedthat,inexceptionalsituations,thiscourtwillevenentertain
anewpointonappeal,providedthatitisinasadvantageousasituationasthecourtbelowtodeterminethepoint
(see,forexample,thedecisionofthiscourtinPanwahSteelPteLtdvKohBrothersBuilding&CivilEngineering
Contractor(Pte)Ltd[2006]4SLR571).
Conclusion
46Inthecircumstances,therefore,wefindthatJTChasfailedtofurnishsufficientprooforevidenceoflossin
respectofitsclaimunderitem(a)andwethereforeallowtheappealwithregardtotheawardwhichtheJudge
madeforthisparticularheadofdamages.Inallotherrespects,however,asstatedearlierat[14]and[29]above,
weaffirmthejudgmentofthecourtbelow.
47Inthelightofourdecision,WSLisentitledtoreceivefromJTCthreequartersofitscostsbothhereand
below.Theusualconsequentialordersaretofollow.
ReportedbyDouglasChiQiyuan.
12/12

Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp damages appeal

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp damages appeal

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1/23/2016

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi