Tan Shuh Lin (Administrator of the Estate of Tan Kut Fai, Deceased) v Loong Kai Jun Matthew

Facts

Mr Tan Kut Fai and the defendant, Loong Kai Jun Matthew, were neighbours on the same floor of a condominium and used the same lift. On 21 March 2019 the defendant took his Corgi down in the lift on a 4ft leash, which he said he shortened to 3ft by holding it a foot from the end. Mr Tan was waiting at the basement carpark lobby; when the door opened the Corgi came out slightly ahead of the defendant, Mr Tan was shocked, fell backwards and hit his head, suffering a traumatic brain injury that left him dependent on others. The incident was captured on poor-quality CCTV at one frame per second.

Through his daughter, Ms Tan Shuh Lin, as deputy, Mr Tan sued the defendant in District Court Suit No 1749 of 2021 in negligence and for breach of the condominium by-laws, which a subsidiary proprietor may enforce under s 32(10) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004. Mr Tan died in April 2025 after trial had begun, and his daughter continued the action as administrator of his estate. The estate alleged that the Corgi was aggressive, barked and lunged at Mr Tan, and was not on a short leash, and that a Corgi was not a permitted small breed.

Issues

1. Whether a dog owner owes a duty to take reasonable care in handling or controlling his dog when leaving a lift
2. Whether the defendant breached that duty, including whether the Corgi was aggressive, lunged or barked at Mr Tan, or was not on a short leash
3. Whether the defendant breached the by-laws on small breeds, short leashes and keeping dogs under control

Holding

The District Judge dismissed the estate's claim, finding that the defendant owed a duty of care but was not negligent and did not breach the condominium by-laws. The parties were directed to file written submissions on costs within 14 days.

Reasoning

On duty, the court applied the two-stage test in Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100. Harm from a poorly controlled dog leaving a lift was foreseeable, there was proximity, and no policy reason pointed the other way; English cases such as Draper and another v Hodder [1972] 2 All ER 210 recognised such a duty.

On breach, the standard would be higher for an aggressive dog, but the evidence did not show this Corgi was aggressive: the estate's dog behaviour witness had never observed it, while its vet described it as generally calm and it later passed a therapy-dog temperament test. The court accepted the defendant's direct, unshaken evidence that the Corgi veered towards Mr Tan and he pulled it back onto its hind legs, but it did not lunge. The four CCTV frames could not show a lunge, the medical reports did not mention one, and the opinions of the estate's witnesses rested on footage they could not read reliably. Even if the dog had lunged, pulling it back on a taut leash to prevent contact was reasonable control. Barking was not proved, since the footage had no audio and the other accounts were indirect; in any case a bark without a physical threat could hardly be a breach. The footage showed a short, taut leash, and a 3ft lead was reasonable for the dog's and owner's heights. Visiting Mr Tan in hospital was a kind gesture, not an admission of liability.

On the by-laws, the phrase "small breed as defined by the relevant authorities" had no settled meaning. The Housing and Development Board's breed list applies only to its own property and does not define small breeds, so no breach of that by-law was shown. The short leash and control by-laws were met for the same reasons as in negligence.

From the judgment