Negligence and personal injury
Walks through a negligence claim in order: whether a duty of care arises, how breach is judged, proving that the breach caused the loss, losses too remote to recover, the claimant's own share of blame, and how damages for personal injury are assessed.
10 cases, read in order · Updated
Legal information from the judgments, not legal advice. Disclaimer
-
Step 1: Golden Pacific Shipping & Holdings Pte. Ltd. v Arc Marine Engineering Pte. Ltd.
A duty of care is tested by factual foreseeability, then legal proximity, then policy; applying that test, the High Court found a ship repairer owed the shipowner a duty, though no breach was proved.
It is a two-stage test comprising of, first, proximity and, second, policy considerations, which are together preceded by the preliminary requirement of factual foreseeability
From the judgment Does a ship repairer with no contract with the shipowner owe it a duty of care?
Yes, but the High Court found no bailment and no proven breach, as the correct plug was more likely than not fitted, and dismissed the owner's claim.
High Court · 19 January 2024 · [2024] SGHC 15 · Read the case
-
Step 2: Jonathan William Glassberg v UBS AG, Singapore Branch
Legal proximity can be ruled out by the parties' own terms: the Appellate Division held that a bank's clause saying clients rely on their own judgment precluded a duty of care over its recommendations.
We are of the view that cl 7.1 alone precludes a finding of the legal proximity between UBS and Mr Glassberg required to establish a duty of care, let alone the combined effect of these clauses.
From the judgment Does a bank owe a duty of care for recommendations when its terms say clients rely on their own judgment?
No, here. The Appellate Division held that clause alone negated the proximity a duty of care needs and was fair and reasonable for a sophisticated client, and dismissed the client's appeal in its entirety.
High Court (Appellate Division) · 22 August 2025 · [2025] SGHC(A) 13 · Read the case
-
Step 3: Parvaty d/o Raju and another v National University Hospital (S) Pte Ltd and another
For doctors, breach is judged by the Bolam test read with the Bolitho addendum: the High Court found two hospitals' care was supported by a responsible body of opinion within the profession, so there was no breach.
I was satisfied that the Defendants’ decisions and actions during their care and management of Mdm Parvaty were supported by a responsible body of opinion within the profession.
From the judgment Is a hospital negligent for treating dry heel gangrene conservatively in a high-risk dialysis patient?
No, here. Applying the Bolam test and Bolitho addendum, the High Court preferred the defence experts, found no breach of duty by either hospital, dismissed the negligence claims and ordered indemnity costs.
High Court · 12 January 2026 · [2026] SGHC 7 · Read the case
-
Step 4: Pierre Andre Jacques Lorinet v Helu-Trans (S) Pte Ltd
Breach must be proved, not assumed from the accident: the High Court held that a sculpture falling from a wall did not itself show the movers mounted it carelessly, as the real question was why it fell.
Overall, the fact that the Sculpture fell is only the starting point and the real question is why the Sculpture fell.
From the judgment Is a mover liable when a sculpture it mounted on a wall falls years later?
No, here. The High Court held the contract claim time-barred and, although the movers owed a duty of care in tort, found neither breach nor causation proved, so it dismissed the owner's claims.
High Court · 10 April 2025 · [2025] SGHC 66 · Read the case
-
Step 5: Chua Kim Chuan v HSBC Life (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Breach alone does not win the claim: the High Court found an insurer breached its duty over a job reference, but causation in fact failed because the applicant would not leave his existing job as the prospective employer required.
Thus, it could not be said that Mr Chua lost a reasonable chance of employment with Prudential, by reason of the EVR errors. I thus find that causation in fact has not been established.
From the judgment Is an insurer liable for a careless job reference if the applicant would not have accepted the job's terms?
No, here. Despite finding a breach of duty, the High Court dismissed all claims: the applicant wanted part-time work, not the full-time job, the other-employer claim was time-barred, and qualified privilege answered the libel claim.
High Court · 17 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 189 · Read the case
-
Step 6: Deloitte & Touche LLP v Hin Leong Trading (Pte.) Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation)
Losses can be too remote to recover: on a strike-out application the Court of Appeal held a company's trading losses too remote to claim from its auditor, applying the stricter contract test since the duty was contractual too.
The Trading Losses are therefore too remote and irrecoverable from Deloitte even if Deloitte were to be found to have been negligent.
From the judgment Can a company recover its trading losses from a negligent auditor?
No, here. The Court of Appeal held them too remote even if negligence were proved, as the auditor had no part in trading decisions and wrongful trading provisions need actual knowledge, so partly allowed the appeal, striking that claim out.
Court of Appeal · 16 July 2026 · [2026] SGCA 33 · Read the case
-
Step 7: Diana Booi Yee Tze v Anthony Lee Zhen Lin
Contributory negligence asks whether the claimant acted reasonably: the High Court held a pedestrian hit from behind by a car on the wrong side of the road was not to blame for failing to look back.
In my view, having safely crossed the Inbound Lane, it would not have been reasonable to expect her to also simultaneously look back (to her right) at the Inbound Lane for any vehicles that might be speeding in the wrong direction.
From the judgment Is a pedestrian hit from behind by a car driven on the wrong side of the road contributorily negligent?
No, not here. The High Court found the driver failed to keep a proper lookout and was likely speeding, found no contributory negligence, and entered interlocutory judgment for the pedestrian on the basis that the driver was fully liable.
High Court · 12 June 2025 · [2025] SGHC 111 · Read the case
-
Step 8: Nagarajan Murugesan v Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte. Ltd. and others
A claimant's share of blame is judged against the realities of the scene: on appeal, the High Court cut a banksman's contributory negligence from 33.33% to 10% given a busy roadside worksite.
In the static environment of the court room, it is simple to conjure up counterfactuals of what a party could have and should have done. However, the court must be attuned to the realities of a dynamic worksite.
From the judgment How much blame does a banksman bear for standing in an excavator's blind spot?
Only 10% here. The High Court allowed his appeal, cut his contributory negligence from 33.33% to 10%, and gave judgment against his employer, the neighbouring site's operator and the main contractor jointly and severally for 90% of damages.
High Court · 8 February 2024 · [2024] SGHC 36 · Read the case
-
Step 9: Choo Yew Liang Sebastian v Koh Yew Teck
At the assessment of damages, an injured claimant must still prove each injury was probably, not merely possibly, caused by the accident; the High Court upheld the nil award for a left wrist injury not shown to be caused.
While it is important to prove that causation was possible, it is even more crucial for the appellant, bearing the burden of proof, to prove that causation was probable.
From the judgment Does an interlocutory judgment on liability also decide that an accident caused the injuries claimed?
No, not where no evidence on injuries was led. The High Court held causation of injury remained open at the assessment, and allowed the injured claimant's appeal in part, raising the award to $225,722.98.
High Court · 19 August 2024 · [2024] SGHC 212 · Read the case
-
Step 10: Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng
Damages compensate only actual loss: the Court of Appeal held government medical subsidies and grants of $39,515.08 deductible from a road accident victim's damages, as nothing showed they were meant to be enjoyed on top of damages.
In the absence of such intention, the default rule against double recovery should apply.
From the judgment Are untargeted government medical subsidies deducted from the damages a road accident victim recovers?
Yes. The Court of Appeal held the subsidies and grants of $39,515.08 were not intended to be enjoyed over and above the damages, so they were deductible; it allowed the driver's appeal and refused a repayment order.
Court of Appeal · 8 August 2024 · [2024] SGCA 28 · Read the case