Apex court allows part of NTUC Foodfare’s S$443,000 closure claim

SINGAPORE — Overturning an earlier High Court ruling, the Court of Appeal on Thursday (July 19) held SIA Engineering Company and its negligent employee liable for about S$176,000 in damaged equipment and loss of profits to NTUC Foodfare.

The case arose from an accident on February 13, 2014.

Mr Yap, who operated a vehicle to tow and push back aircraft, failed to keep a proper lookout and collided into a pillar that supported part of the Changi Airport Terminal 2 transit lounge above him.

The accident caused part of the lounge’s floor to subside, and NTUC Foodfare’s Wang Café kiosk was within the area ordered to close by the Building and Construction Authority.

Although the damaged equipment and loss of profits was covered by NTUC Foodfare’s insurer NTUC Income, the apex court ruled that this did not negate a duty of care by Mr Yap.

Judge of Appeal Steven Chong, who ruled alongside Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Quentin Loh, disagreed with High Court judge Debbie Ong that NTUC Foodfare’s losses “should be spread out throughout society through the engine of insurance”.

Justice Ong, who threw out NTUC Foodfare’s suit last October, had said that ordering compensation in favour of the eatery operator was as good as saying it could rely “on the defendants (and everyone in the world) not to interrupt their business”.

But the apex court said Mr Yap owed NTUC Foodfare a duty of care. This is because he operated airtug vehicles in a “very restricted area” below the café.

NTUC Foodfare’s loss of profits was also directly due to the fact that it was unable to operate the kiosk because part of the transit lounge was rendered unsafe for occupation as a result of the accident, Judge of Appeal Chong added.

Mr Yap plainly knew he was operating a powerful vehicle, and must have known that any negligence could mean the airtug colliding into a structure supporting the lounge, he said.

NTUC Foodfare did not succeed in all its claims, however.

It could not recover about S$183,000 in rental cost between August and November 2014 when the kiosk remained shut even after the area’s closure order had lifted, as the Changi Airport Group had concerns about the waterproofing membrane beneath the floor of the kiosk.

Neither did Mr Yap’s negligence cause NTUC Foodfare to sustain losses of nearly S$83,000 for rebuilding the kiosk, the apex court ruled. The Changi Airport Group had not required NTUC Foodfare to rebuild the kiosk and was willing to allow it to resume operations if a qualified person or professional engineer certified its safety.