Ng Huat Seng v Mohammad: 26 Sep 2017

(Singapore Court of Appeal) The owners of a property had engaged the tortfeasor as an independent contractor to carry out demolition works at their premises. It was argued that the recent decisions had undermined the distinction between employees and independent contractors.
Held: The two cases did not present a new analytical framework, but rather: ‘while we accept that the Christian Brothers case and Cox recognise that the doctrine of vicarious liability can be applied outside the strict confines of an employment relationship, it becomes evident, when one examines these judgments more closely, that their essential contribution was to fine-tune the existing framework underlying the doctrine so as to accommodate the more diverse range of relationships which might be encountered in today’s context. These relationships, when whittled down to their essence, possess the same fundamental qualities as those which inhere in employer-employee relationships, and thus make it appropriate for vicarious liability to be imposed.’ and ‘Indeed, we do not see how vicarious liability, the normative foundation of which rests on the theory that it is fair, just and reasonable to hold a defendant liable for the acts of the tortfeasor on the ground that the tortfeasor is in fact engaged in the defendant’s enterprise, could possibly be extended to tortious acts committed by an independent contractor, who, by definition, is engaged in his own enterprise. There is simply nothing fair, just and reasonable about imposing secondary liability on a defendant in such a situation.’

Judges:

Sundaresh Menon Cj; Chao Hick Tin Ja; Andrew Phang Boon Leong Ja; Judith
Prakash Ja; Tay Yong Kwang Ja

Citations:

[2017] SGCA 58

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants SC 1-Apr-2020
The Bank had employed a doctor to provide medical assessments as necessary. The doctor had used the opportunities presented to assault sexually many patients. The court was now asked whether the Bank was vicariously liable for the acts of this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.680147