FEIDA BUS CONSORTIUM PTE. LTD. v ROYAL AUTOZ EXPORTER PTE. LTD.

Facts

Feida Bus Consortium Pte Ltd, the lessee of a property at No 6 Sungei Kadut Way, rented a warehouse on it to Royal Autoz Exporter Pte Ltd under a Tenancy Agreement dated 24 March 2020 at $15,000 a month. Royal Autoz bought deregistered vehicles to export or scrap for parts. During the Circuit Breaker, on 4 May 2020, it towed a deregistered Chery car into the warehouse. On 23 May 2020 a fire broke out from the Chery car. An employee, Ganapathy, saw flames beneath its engine and lifted it with a forklift; flammable liquid then leaked and ignited. A dormitory resident, Mayavel, used a fire hose from a reel in the warehouse. The fire spread and was put out by the SCDF, and the property was placed under a closure order for almost 18 months.

In Suit No 122 of 2022, Feida sued for its fire damage, alleging breaches of express and implied terms of the tenancy and negligence: on its case Royal Autoz's workers were working on or near the Chery car when the fire started, and the company failed to stop the fire spreading. Royal Autoz denied that any work was being done, saying its staff were only taking delivery of vehicles. It counterclaimed for its own losses, alleging that no water came out of the hose reel because Feida had not maintained it.

Issues

1. Whether Royal Autoz breached express or implied terms of the Tenancy Agreement
2. Whether res ipsa loquitur allowed an inference that Royal Autoz negligently caused the fire
3. Whether Royal Autoz negligently allowed the fire to spread
4. Whether Feida owed and breached a duty to maintain the hose reel

Holding

The High Court allowed Feida's claim in part, only to the extent of $814 for the stamp duty and penalty Feida had paid under cl 24, which Royal Autoz conceded it owed. It dismissed the rest of Feida's claims in contract and tort and dismissed Royal Autoz's counterclaim in its entirety, with costs to be heard.

Reasoning

On contract, cl 2 did not confine the warehouse to spare parts: Feida's director admitted in cross-examination that he knew and consented to the business of storing and scrapping deregistered vehicles. The ban on diesel tanks in cl 11 did not reach petrol in vehicles' own fuel tanks, and cl 13 did not require fuel to be removed before storage. Applying Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 193, none of the proposed implied terms was justified, since there was no true gap or business necessity. Feida's own evidence suggested it had provided the firefighting equipment.

On negligence, a duty to take reasonable care to prevent fires starting or spreading was owed. The cause was likely an electrical fault in the car, which all the experts accepted could occur with the ignition off, so the precise cause was unknown and Royal Autoz was in control. But res ipsa loquitur did not apply because Feida identified no act increasing fire risk. Its own expert ruled out hot works; repairs under a bonnet were within the permitted business; a Circuit Breaker breach had no bearing on fire risk; and the evidence did not show anyone was working on the car. The tools nearby, the word working in the SCDF report, the timing, vague sounds heard and the leaking fuel were all insufficiently probative. No negligence in storage, equipment or firefighting was proved, and Mayavel was not Royal Autoz's employee.

The counterclaim failed because no duty on Feida to maintain the hose reel was shown, the evidence indicated the hose was working, cl 15 stated the landlord was not responsible for fire damage to the tenant's goods, and losses were not pleaded.

From the judgment