High Court · Decided 21 November 2003

Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd v Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd and Others

Feedback & support

[2003] SGHC 286Case no. Suit 352/2001

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

Judith Prakash J:
Introduction
[1] The plaintiffs, Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Private) Limited, are the owners of the premises at 63 Robinson Road known as Afro-Asia Building (‘AA Building’). Up to March 1995, immediately to the left of AA Building along Robinson Road was a 6-storey building known as 57 Robinson Road. The first defendants, Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd (‘Da Zhong’), the owners of these premises, decided sometime in 1995 to redevelop the land. This decision set in train the events that led to this action. The parties involved in the ensuing construction activities at 57 Robinson Road were the second defendants, Ong Hoo Kim Construction (Pte) Ltd (‘OHK’), the third defendants, Falcon Piling Pte Ltd (‘Falcon’), the fourth defendants, Trevi Contractors (Singapore) Pte Ltd (‘Trevi’), and the fifth defendants, Chin Kok Kwong Design & Build Pte Ltd (‘CKK’).
[2] The redevelopment started in March 1995 with the demolition of the existing building by OHK. Following this, excavation and piling works were carried out in preparation for the construction of a 13-storey building. In 1997, however, the plans changed. First Capital Asia Land Pte Ltd (‘FCAL’) a company related to Da Zhong, acquired a leasehold interest in 55 Robinson Road, the plot of land immediately adjacent to the left boundary of 57 Robinson Road. Da Zhong then agreed to grant a lease of 98 years in respect of 57 Robinson Road to FCAL. The two plots of land were combined and FCAL proceeded to build a 20-storey building on them. From October 1997, further piling works took place on the combined plots and thereafter construction of the superstructure commenced. The building was eventually completed some time in 2000 and it is now known as Robinson Centre.
[3] The plaintiffs complain that as a result of various construction activities at 57 Robinson Road, the AA Building suffered damage including cracks, soil settlement or subsidence, sinking of floors, tilting of the building and water seepage. Hence this action.
Summary of events leading up to the action
[4] The involvement of the various defendants in the construction activities at 57 Robinson Road was as follows:
(1) Da Zhong made the decision for the redevelopment of the site, the demolition of the existing building and the construction of the 13-storey replacement. They employed OHK, Falcon and CKK.
(2) OHK was the demolition contractor engaged by Da Zhong to demolish the existing building. They were in control of the site from 15 March 1995 until 30 June 1995 when their demolition works were completed.
(3) Falcon was the piling contractor for the 13-storey building. They took over the site on 30 June 1995 and carried out piling works until 9 July 1996.
(4) CKK was the main contractor for the erection of the superstructure. They took over the site on 12 July 1996 to carry out the main building works. They stopped work after a few months due to the change in the plans.
(5) Trevi was employed by FCAL to do the piling work for the 20-storey building. They took over the new combined work site on 29 October 1997. The piling operations started about a month later and were completed on 26 June 1998.
(6) CKK was appointed by FCAL to build the 20-storey building and the combined site was handed over to them for this purpose on 12 August 1998.
[5] A short description of the original construction site may be helpful. The front of the site faced Robinson Road. On the left was AA Building which was bounded by Robinson Road in front and McCallum Street on the left. On the right of the site was a 3-storey pre-war shophouse known as 55 Robinson Road. At the rear was a back lane, Boon Tat Link, which ran behind all three premises until it joined McCallum Street. On the other side of the back lane there was a multi-storey office building called Shing Kwan House that faced Shenton Way. Subsequently, the original site was enlarged by the incorporation of 55 Robinson Road. It must also be stated that Shing Kwan House was demolished in about 1998 and work then started on a new building on that site. In the course of the proceedings this second construction site was referred to as ‘the Kajima site’ after the name of the main contractor for that project.
[6] The AA Building comprises two structures: a 7-storey building and a 4-storey annex. The 7-storey building was constructed in the 1950s as an L-shaped building with frontages on Robinson Road and McCallum Street. It is of reinforced-concrete frame construction and was built on piled foundations. In about 1956, a single storey building which became an electrical sub-station was constructed at the rear corner of the 7-storey building. This sub-station was used first by the Public Utilities Board and thereafter by PowerGrid Ltd. The 4-storey annex was apparently constructed in two phases. The first phase comprised the first (ground) and second floors, apparently built in 1969/70. The third and fourth floors were built about two years later. The first phase extended over the sub-station, which was increased in width, and also over the second storey terrace at the back of the 7-storey building. The roof slab of the sub-station became part of the second storey floor of the extension. In the second phase, the annex was increased to four storeys with an additional reinforced concrete floor and a steel roof structure with metal roofing. The annex was supported off the original piled structure, the piled roof terrace columns on new piled foundations along Boon Tat Link and also off the sub-station. The sub-station itself did not have a piled foundation.
Events in 1995
[7] In February 1995, Messrs Graham Miller (Singapore) Pte Ltd (‘Graham Miller’) conducted a photographic survey of AA Building and 55 Robinson Road in order to ascertain the then existing condition of these two buildings. This survey was carried out in anticipation of the demolition and construction work to be carried out on Da Zhong’s land. On 15 March, the site was handed over to OHK in order that they could commence demolition of the existing building. Work started shortly thereafter.
[8] The work had an almost immediate effect on AA Building. From 28 March onwards, the plaintiffs complained both verbally and in writing of defects caused to their building by the works. The complaints were of noise and vibration felt by tenants and other persons in AA Building, of cracks appearing in parts of the building and also of water seepage. By then the demolition had reached the stage of exposing the wall of AA Building that was adjacent to Da Zhong’s building.
[9] On 12 April, a meeting was held at AA Building in respect of the plaintiffs’ complaints. Among those present were representatives of the plaintiffs, of OHK, of Graham Miller and of Da Zhong. The meeting was held to check and record the list of defects that had appeared in AA Building. Graham Miller subsequently prepared a report dated 19 April which listed the defects found.
[10] On 27 April, the plaintiffs complained that OHK had knocked through part of the wall of AA Building between the 6 and 7 storeys at the front lift lobby area. Da Zhong instructed their consultant engineers, DE Consultants Pte Ltd (‘DE Consultants’) to look into this complaint. After investigation, DE Consultants informed Da Zhong that there was no boundary brickwall between the plaintiffs’ building and 57 Robinson Road from the 6 floor downwards. In fact only a master board separated the two buildings. They also discovered that the clip-lock roof at the 4 storey of AA Building was secured to their boundary wall (which was due for demolition) instead of being supported by independent supports from AA Building. The plaintiffs informed Da Zhong that they were taking steps to deal with these matters but also kept on asking Da Zhong what remedial measures they were taking in respect of the damage that their works had caused to AA Building.
[11] In June, the plaintiffs put on record that the floor of unit #04-03 seemed to have sunk since the demolition work started and that fresh hairline cracks had been seen in the ceiling of the unit directly below that floor. Further, the marble slabs of the building column fronting Robinson Road had been damaged the previous weekend and strong vibrations were being felt by the tenants whilst the demolition works were on going. The next month, the plaintiffs renewed their complaints about possible water seepage damage.
[13] On 30 June, Falcon took over the site from OHK. Before starting their piling work which was going to take place in close proximity not only to the neighbouring buildings but also to the MRT tunnel below Robinson Road, Falcon arranged for a pre-condition survey to be carried out on the surrounding buildings and areas by Thomas Howell Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd (‘Thomas Howell’). Thomas Howell issued their survey report in August.
[14] Falcon commenced their piling works from the rear of the work site and at the area next to the sub-station in AA Building. On 4 August which was the day on which the first pile was being installed, Da Zhong received a letter from the plaintiffs advising them that new cracks had appeared in AA Building as a result of commencement of piling works. Also, other cracks had deteriorated quite significantly. The plaintiffs asked Da Zhong to instruct Falcon to stop work immediately. A site inspection was then made by both Falcon and DE Consultants. On 5 and 7 August, joint inspections were conducted by Falcon, Thomas Howell and the plaintiffs’ representatives. Thomas Howell subsequently issued an addendum to their survey report.
[15] Piling work resumed on 8 August. On 25 August, the plaintiffs wrote to put on record that strong vibrations had been felt that afternoon. Also, further cracks had been found on walls and columns and existing wall cracks had deteriorated. They also stated that their tenants had expressed great concern as to whether there was any impending danger from the piling works. Three days later the plaintiffs complained of new cracks emerging in other parts of their building.
[16] Da Zhong was concerned. They requested DE Consultants to investigate the matter and to obtain advice from a professional engineer on these cracks and on the remedial steps to be taken. In order to ensure that nothing further was done to aggravate the situation, DE Consultants decided that all work on site be stopped. They issued a stop work order to Falcon on 29 August.
[17] Falcon appointed WP Brown Singapore, a firm of consulting structural and civil engineers, to advise them on remedial measures and Da Zhong appointed another engineering firm, AGS Consult, for the same purpose. In order to determine the nature of the foundation of the AA Building at the sub-station area, a minor excavation was done by Falcon on 30 August. It was discovered that there was no piled foundation under the sub-station. The sub-station was, instead, sitting on a footing on top of which was a strut and then a ground beam. It was also discovered that the ground beam and the footing were cracked.
[18] On 5 September, WP Brown recommended that the first remedial measure to strengthen this foundation and to prevent further movement of the sub-station was to immediately grout the footing with concrete. Da Zhong instructed Falcon to carry out this work immediately and also to grout the cracks in the back lane façade and columns and the stumps along the boundary wall. On 7 September Da Zhong notified the plaintiffs of the work that had been done.
[19] Further investigations were carried out into the foundations of AA Building and it was discovered that all of the annex was constructed on pre-cast concrete piles except for that small portion which rested on the sub-station which itself was supported on a raft foundation. At Da Zhong’s request, Dr KK Soh of AGS Consult proposed remedial measures which would provide support for this part of AA Building. The plaintiffs and their engineering advisers, a company called Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte Ltd (‘Meinhardt’), were informed by DE Consultants of the measures proposed by Dr Soh at a meeting that took place on 30 October. Da Zhong decided to implement the measures. Work on them commenced on 28 November 1995 and was completed in mid March 1996. In the course of the work, scaffolds were erected inside the sub-station to hold up the interior. Further, some repairs were carried out in AA Building by Falcon.
Events in 1996
[20] Falcon recommenced their piling works on 16 March and completed installation of the last pile on 24 June. After the piling works restarted, the plaintiffs made oral complaints about cracks to Da Zhong’s clerk-of-works. These were then conveyed to Falcon.
[21] Falcon demobilised from the site on 9 July. On 12 July, the site was officially handed over to CKK to start work on erection of the new building. CKK appointed Insight Adjusters & Surveyors Pte Ltd (‘Insight’) to carry out a pre-condition survey on the surrounding buildings. These surveys were conducted in March and July and three survey reports dated 21 March, 24 July and 14 August were issued by Insight.
[22] In view of the problems previously experienced with AA Building, CKK proceeded to install sheet piles in the site in order to divide 57 Robinson Road into three sections length-wise. A grout mix was then injected into the soil in the section nearest to AA Building to strengthen it. The purpose of having the grout mix was to harden the soil and consolidate it before excavation work took place. This was done to eliminate any vibration or soil movements that might cause damage to AA Building. Thereafter, CKK started excavation works for the purposes of cutting the piles in the section next to AA Building.
[23] On 22 August, the plaintiffs complained that more cracks had appeared in their office on the second level of AA Building, that there was water seepage on the third level and that there were still visible cracks on the third and fourth levels. New cracks had also recently appeared on units in those levels. The plaintiffs continued to make complaints about water leaking into AA Building throughout September and October. In October they also complained that cracks were widening.
[24] On 16 December a joint inspection was held at AA Building attended by Da Zhong, DE Consultants, Falcon and the plaintiffs. The purpose of this inspection was to finalise the list of cracks and remedial works to be done by Falcon. Thereafter, Falcon carried out some repair works and these were completed by January 1997. It was Falcon’s view at that stage that they had no further responsibility for damage to AA Building.
Events in 1997
[25] All work on the 13-storey building was officially stopped on 1 January 1997. From then until early October no work or construction activities were carried out at the site. This was because FCAL had acquired 55 Robinson Road and decided that the plots of land at 55 and 57 Robinson Road would be combined. This would enable the developer to build a bigger and taller building. The developer of the new building would be FCAL. FCAL proceeded to appoint Trevi as their piling contractors and to reappoint OHK as the main contractors for the construction of the 20-storey building. The enlarged work site was physically taken over by FCAL from about 29 October which was the date when Trevi occupied the site to do piling works. Trevi commenced their piling operations after 27 November 1997.
Events in 1998 and thereafter
[27] At the beginning of February 1998, the plaintiffs sent Da Zhong’s lawyer a list of defects found in AA Building and requested that these be rectified. Following this, a joint inspection took place on 25 March attended by the plaintiffs, Da Zhong, DE Consultants and Dr Soh.
[29] Trevi completed piling works on 26 June. The enlarged site was handed over to OHK again on 12 August for them to commence construction of the 20-storey building. OHK commenced excavation work on or around 1 September 1998 and the main building works continued until the temporary occupation permit was obtained on 1 November 2000. During this period of time, there were still complaints from the plaintiffs about damage to AA Building.
The action
[30] This action was commenced in March 2001. The statement of claim shows that the plaintiffs’ claim is based on breach of duty, negligence and nuisance. Most of the allegations are made against all of the defendants without distinguishing between them and specifying the nature of the duty each of them owed the plaintiffs. Some specific allegations are made, however.
[31] In respect of Da Zhong, the specific allegations are:
(1) that they were under a strict duty to support AA Building and the land on which the same stands;
(2) that extensive damage was caused to AA Building by Da Zhong’s breach of their duty to support AA Building and their failure to:
(a) take all necessary steps to avoid damage to AA Building when Da Zhong withdrew the support long existing to AA Building;
(b) to provide a sufficient means of support to AA Building before withdrawing the existing support;
(c) take notice of the plaintiffs’ complaints of damage to AA Building, thereby aggravating the damage; and
(d) take all necessary steps to rectify the damage and/or to provide adequate remedial support to AA Building.
[32] The other allegations in the statement of claim were made against all the defendants. These were:
(1) that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to ensure that adequate measures were adopted to ensure that AA Building would not be damaged or affected during the course of the demolition and/or construction activities on the site;
(2) during the course of the demolition and construction activities (‘the works’), the defendants wrongfully permitted and caused:
(a) extensive damage to AA Building;
(b) further damage to AA Building in that external supports raised by Da Zhong remain attached to AA Building even after the completion of the works and that this constituted trespass;
(c) further damage in that concrete core samples remained on AA Building after completion of the works and that this constituted trespass;
(d) further damage in that excessive construction noise and vibrations affected AA Building and resulted in tenants predetermining tenancies and not renewing tenancies and in preventing new tenants from taking up tenancies.
(3) that the damage to AA Building was caused by negligence on the part of the defendants who:
(a) failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure the works would not damage AA Building or the land on which it stood;
(b) failed to take precautions to ensure that the works would not cause falling debris to damage the plaintiffs’ premises;
(c) caused or permitted the works to be carried out in an unsafe and dangerous manner;
(d) caused or permitted the foundation of AA Building to be disturbed through soil movement, settlement and vibrations during the works;
(e) caused or permitted the ground adjacent to AA Building to settle during the excavation;
(f) failed to employ methods to minimise disturbance to the soil on which AA Building stood or to prevent the ground adjacent to AA Building from being disturbed or settling;
(g) failed to carry out adequate shoring work immediately after the excavation to prevent ground movement and settlement;
(h) failed to pay sufficient attention to the plaintiffs’ request to stop work thereby aggravating the damage to AA Building.
(4) that the construction noise and vibrations that affected AA Building and its tenantability were caused by the defendants’ negligence and/or breach of duty of care on part of each of them in that they caused such vibrations and noise to arise from the works and failed to take precautions or adopt such methods of excavation and piling driving which would have avoided causing vibrations and construction noise;
(5) the activities of the defendants constituted nuisances against the plaintiffs;
(6) in the alternative, the plaintiffs relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and averred that the damage and loss would not have been caused to AA Building except for the works commissioned by Da Zhong and undertaken by the other defendants.
[33] The plaintiffs included particulars of the special damage that they had suffered as a result of having to engage services of the experts to conduct inspections of AA Building and to verify the extent of the damage
[34] The statement of claim ended with the plaintiffs claiming the following main reliefs:
(1) damages to be assessed including damages for the continuing trespass;
(2) special damages;
(3) an injunction compelling the defendants to remove all the external supports on and against AA Building and all core samples from the building.
[35] I should note at this stage that the way in which the plaintiffs’ case was pleaded resulted in Da Zhong having to answer all of the allegations made and in the other defendants having to answer almost all of the allegations made. This resulted in lengthy cross-examination and a prolongation of the trial which could have been avoided had the plaintiffs been more specific in their accusations.
[36] Da Zhong, OHK and Falcon appointed the same solicitors and filed a joint defence. It contained the following main points:
(1) that as the sub-station was controlled by PowerGrid and its predecessor, the PUB, the plaintiffs could not assert full rights over the sub-station and these belonged to PUB which was not a party to the action;
(2) the annex over the sub-station was illegal and the plaintiffs ought to have known that its construction could cause damage to it in the event any development took place in the vicinity of AA Building and alternatively, that the annex was constructed negligently;
(3) from 3 October 1997 when Trevi was appointed by FCAL, alternatively from 27 November 1997 when Trevi started its piling works and alternatively from 19 March 1998 which was the date on which the lease of 57 Robinson Road to FCAL commenced, the first to third defendants were not and could not be responsible for any damage occasioned to AA Building;
(4) whilst accepting that there was a right of support owing to AA Building and the sub-station, Da Zhong pleaded that that right was duly observed and never breached by them and Da Zhong and the other two defendants also pleaded that they had provided and/or taken reasonable steps to provide AA Building with the necessary support;
(5) Da Zhong averred that once they granted the lease to Falcon they ceased to owe any duty of support to AA Building;
(6) alternatively, all three defendants averred that they had taken all reasonable and necessary measures to ensure that AA Building and the sub-station would not be damaged by their works;
(7) the defects and damage allegedly caused to AA Building were pre-existing defects and damage which existed before any works were commenced on the site;
(8) alternatively, the defects and damage allegedly caused to AA Building were rectified and repaired thereby placing the premises in a good or reasonable condition without the plaintiffs suffering any damage;
(9) the plaintiffs agreed to the erection of the external supports and therefore such supports cannot amount to trespass;
(10) the core samples were not left in AA Building by the first to third defendants; and
(11) the plaintiffs had caused or contributed to the damage they had suffered by erecting an unauthorised annex and erecting it when there was no proper foundation below the sub-station and by failing to provide a proper foundation for the sub-station.
[37] The defence filed on behalf of Trevi was much shorter. They averred that they were only appointed as piling contractors for the site in mid October 1997 and were not responsible for any occurrence which took place before October 1997 or which did not fall within the scope of their work at the site. The plaintiffs were put to strict proof that Trevi’s works had caused damage to AA Building. They also denied that the plaintiffs had suffered the loss and damage alleged.
[38] CKK also filed a short defence. They denied being the agents or employees of Da Zhong save for a brief period of about three months starting in July 1996. They did not admit carrying out extensive demolition, excavation, piling and construction works as agents of Da Zhong. They denied that their works on site had caused any damage to the plaintiffs and put them to strict proof both as to causation and as to date of the alleged damage.
[39] The trial was lengthy. Experts were called by the plaintiffs and the first to third defendants to support their respective positions. For ease of understanding the discussion that follows, these persons were:
(1) Dr Richard Stewart Pugh, a chartered engineer who specialises in geotechnical engineering. Dr Pugh was called by the plaintiffs as an expert witness to consider and prepare a report on the cause of the subsidence and the damage sustained by AA Building;
(2) Mr Crispin Casimir, a chartered building surveyor who was engaged by the plaintiffs to survey and prepare a report on the damage sustained by AA Building. He provided his costing of the works necessary to rectify such defects and damage. He also provided a costing for the demolition and total reconstruction of the annex; and
(3) Mr Kenneth James Patterson-Kane, a civil engineer who was engaged by the first to third defendants to do the following:
(a) carry out a visual inspection of the damage to AA Building;
(b) to examine documents relating to such damage and the works on the site;
(c) to assess and report on the extent of damage to AA Building and to differentiate between damage caused by the demolition, excavation and construction work at the site and damage due to other causes; and
(d) to identify and report on which of the damage to the building caused by the work at 57 Robinson Road was caused by works carried out up to 1 January 2001 and which was caused by works after that date.
Dr Soh Kok Kee, the civil engineer who was consulted by Da Zhong to advise on remedial methods to preserve the stability of AA Building, also gave evidence. Technically, he would not be regarded as an expert witness as he was involved in the events that occurred. However, in view of his qualifications and experience, his opinions on the technical matters he was involved in would be relevant and merit consideration by the Court.
The plaintiffs’ case against the first, second and third defendants
(i) Condition of AA Building before construction work started
[40] The plaintiffs relied on the contents of the Graham Miller report dated 8 February 1995 to establish the condition of AA Building prior to the commencement of the construction activities at 57 Robinson Road. The surveys culminating in this report took place over a period of three days and both the interior and the exterior of the building were surveyed. The surveyor photographed the areas of dilapidation and described their nature in his report. A second survey was carried out by Graham Miller on 12 April 1995 of five locations where the plaintiffs had reported damage to have occurred during demolition works.
[41] I will now set out the contents of the first Graham Miller report in some detail as this will help delineate the disputed points. Both experts (Dr Pugh for the plaintiffs and Mr Paterson-Kane for the first three defendants) accepted that this report provides the primary documentation of existing defects and damage to the AA Building prior to the commencement of work.
[42] The report noted that the ground floor and second storey of AA Building showed no signs of any significant distress. The front lift lobby and the rear service lobby were said to be in sound condition. On the third storey, fine cracks (less than 1mm) were noted on the wall. On the fourth storey, five observations were made. First, there were stains on the false ceiling boards at the rear door of unit 04-07. Secondly, ‘an extensive fine diagonal crack’ was sighted on the wall next to the front door of that unit. Thirdly, another fine crack was observed on the opposite wall. Fourthly, there was a fine crack near the ceiling of the corridor. Finally, an extensive fine diagonal crack was cited on the wall of an unused motor room. The surveyor found the fifth storey and the roof cladding over the fourth storey annex to be in sound condition. There was, however, an extensive area of staining at the construction joint at the rear of the building. On the sixth storey, there were only two observations. The first was a wide crack along the construction joint of the building and the second was that leaching stains were observed on the surface of the covered column near the rear window of unit 06-09. On the seventh storey, no signs of significant distress were sighted along the corridor. Localised seepage stains on the false ceiling board of the lobby were noted. In unit 07-05, a wide separation gap of signs of severe water seepage was observed along the construction joint. In the men’s toilet, fine cracks were sighted on the wall.
[43] As regards the exterior, the surveyor noted that there were multiple fine cracks near the abutment joint of the rear elevation. Above the sub-station, at the wall between the second and third storeys, multiple fine cracks were observed. These were also seen on the side wall at the entrance of the rear lift lobby. A fine separation gap was observed along the junction of the cladded wall and the apron and fine gaps were seen in the coursing of the wall tiles. Save for the aforesaid, it was recorded that ‘no other signs of significant defects were noted at the rear’. On the side elevation, the wall façade from the second storey to the seventh storey appeared to be in sound condition. Typical fine separation gaps were observed along the junction joints and there were cracks in several of the wall tiles outside the MPH Bookstore. On the front elevation at the ground floor, there were a crack in the wall cladding below the MPH signboard and some stains amongst intermittent fine cracks at the overhead canopy. On the wall façade from the second to the seventh storeys, apart from weathering stains with localised fine cracks, no other signs of significant distress were apparent. No remark was made on the condition of the annex roof. In respect of the roof of the seventh storey building, water ponding and patching of the waterproofing membrane were evident. Multiple fine cracks were observed at the parapet coping and in various other areas. Along the central construction joint of the building, wide cracks were noted, with previous patching, on the parapet facing the back lane. Within one lift motor room there were fine cracks with seepage stains on the walls and ceilings and in another lift motor room, there were multiple fine random cracks on the walls. There were multiple fine cracks to some portions, fine hairline cracks on the wall in lift motor room, some wide cracks along the central construction joints with signs of previous patching undertaken, extensive fine horizontal cracks on the wall near the water tank, some spalling of the external wall and some fine cracks.
[44] The opinion of Dr Pugh was that the annex did not have a fully piled foundation but was supported partly off the 7-storey building, partly off piled foundations and, at its eastern corner, off the concrete raft foundation of the sub-station. Because of the mixed nature of the foundation, a degree of differential settlement and load redistribution took place within the annex as a result of consolidation settlement of the marine alluvium underlying the loose granular made ground on which the sub-station was founded. Dr Pugh stated that at the time of the first Graham Miller report, settlement of the 4-storey annex would have been substantially complete but external evidence of past differential foundation movement between the sub-station and the annex manifested itself in the form of the fine cracks on the rear façade facing Boon Tat Link found by the surveyor. Internally, the survey revealed little in the way of crack damage and the annex was virtually free of such defects. There were no slopes observed on the floors and the building as a whole appeared to be in sound condition.
[45] Mr Patterson-Kane’s opinion was that the cracking in the back lane façade shown in the photographs in the first Graham Miller report was caused by significant differential settlements. He considered that this suggested that the annex as a whole could have had shallow foundations rather than the mixed foundations which Dr Pugh considered likely based on the statement made by the engineer who was responsible for the construction of the annex. In his view, the foundation of the sub-station did not have sufficient structural or bearing capacity to support the load from the annex. He later stated that the damage which resulted from the construction works might not have occurred, or would have been greatly reduced in its extent and severity, if the annex had been provided with competent foundations.
[46] Dr Pugh did not agree with Mr Patterson-Kane’s criticisms of the foundation of the sub-station. He pointed out that there was no evidence that the sub-station foundation had failed to perform its function in the 15 years or so that it supported the sub-station alone or in the following 25 years or so during which it had supported the 4-storey annex as well.
[47] Having considered all the evidence and the comments made by Dr Pugh on Mr Patterson-Kane’s opinion as well as Mr Patterson-Kane’s comments on Dr Pugh’s opinion, I find Dr Pugh’s views to be more coherent, logical and in accordance with the facts established by the various surveys of AA Building and the documents relating to its construction. I find therefore, that, as at February 1995, AA Building was in sound and stable condition. Such defects as existed were due to wear and tear and differential settlement which had stabilised. There were also some defects due to lack of maintenance. None of the defects or damage noted at the time adversely affected the stability of the building. The first Graham Miller report establishes the condition of the building at that time. It was commissioned by First Capital Insurance Ltd, another member of the group that included Da Zhong and FCAL. Da Zhong’s project manager, Mr Goh Chue Chua, agreed in court that Da Zhong and their architects had accepted the first Graham Miller report. He regarded that survey report as being commissioned by Da Zhong and stated that Da Zhong’s position was that they were not responsible for any cracks recorded in that report since the cracks had occurred before Da Zhong’s construction activities commenced. He further agreed that he had seen all of the survey reports produced after the first Graham Miller report as listed in Mr Patterson-Kane’s expert report except for two reports from STIMC Protection Associates and that Da Zhong was not challenging the contents of any of the reports that he had seen. It is significant in this respect that Da Zhong, Falcon and OHK conducted a joint defence and none of them introduced any evidence to challenge the truth of the survey reports which they had agreed should be included in the agreed bundle without the necessity for formal proof.
[48] The first Graham Miller report was important for another reason. As stated above, the experts agreed that the cracks found in the façade of the annex facing Boon Tat Link indicated that there had been differential settlement. Mr Patterson-Kane opined that the parties involved in the development at 57 Robinson Road should have noted from this existing cracking that the foundations of the annex were inadequate to prevent settlement related damage and that they should have taken this into account in selecting construction methods. He qualified this opinion by stating that he would not have expected the developing parties to have anticipated the degree of inadequacy of the foundations in this area. Dr Pugh agreed that the evidence of this survey was sufficient to have alerted those responsible for the adjacent development that the damage to the annex was not compatible with a building on fully piled foundations.
(ii) Damage caused to AA Building
[49] One line of defence put forward was that the plaintiffs had ignored the effect on their building of the construction undertaken at the Kajima site. The first three defendants asserted that the excavation at the Kajima site which started in late 1998 was significantly deeper and bigger than that undertaken at 57 Robinson Road. Quite apart from the fact that no direct evidence was led on the dimensions of the Kajima site excavation, I do not consider that excavation relevant to the causes of the damage sustained by AA Building prior to 1998. It is not relevant to liability for such damage.
[51] On the evidence (oral, documentary and expert) there is no doubt either that additional damage was inflicted on AA Building by the piling work carried out by Falcon after OHK had finished its demolition activities. The piling activities had an immediate adverse effect on the stability of AA Building and this resulted in the work being stopped while investigations were made and methods of stabilising the building were looked into. The details of the damage inflicted can also be seen on damage charts prepared by Dr Pugh based on data from a second survey report issued by Thomas Howell in August 1995 and a survey report issued by Insight Adjusters in July 1996. As Dr Pugh noted, the second Thomas Howell report ‘revealed previously unrecorded, widespread damage within the sub-station at ground floor level and in Afro-Asia’s offices on the first floor immediately above, extending also to the second and third storeys of the 4-storey building’. Instrumentation data supplied by the defendants subsequently indicated that between 10 August 1995 and the cessation of piling on 29 August 1995 the AA Building underwent up to 25 mm of settlement. Further subsidence took place between 29 August and 16 October 1995 and this was plotted on a graph prepared by Dr Pugh. Mr Patterson-Kane considered that there had been settlement at the sub-station during the period from 10 August to 16 October 1995 and that on 28 August 1995, there had been settlement of 24 mm. Thereafter, settlement had fluctuated slightly before remaining fairly steady at 25 to 26 mm from 11 September to 16 October 1995. In his opinion, it was clear that the piling works were a cause of the settlement of the sub-station and of resulting settlement related damage to the sub-station, the parts of the building directly above the sub-station and immediately adjacent parts of the building.
[52] In their joint submissions, the first three defendants admit that some damage was caused during OHK’s and Falcon’s works but do not agree with the extent of damage asserted by the plaintiffs or its cause. They rely on the Patterson-Kane report to support their submissions that the damage during demolition works was more minor than the plaintiffs alleged. Whilst they admit that there was settlement damage by reason of the piling works, they lay the blame for this on the allegedly inadequate foundations of the sub-station. In this connection, they also rely on the evidence of Dr Soh who investigated the cause of settlement at AA Building. He stated that trial excavations conducted after the piling works was stopped showed that the foundation of the sub-station comprised masonry footings with no steel reinforcement. Dr Soh considered the sub-station to have what is called a ‘raft foundation’. His view was that the structural strength of the raft had not been adequately designed to support the sub-station. However, the sub-station did not collapse before the defendants’ works started because the raft had been supported by cantilever action from adjacent beams and at the same time the whole sub-station leaned onto 57 Robinson Road. In Dr Soh’s opinion, the withdrawal of the support of 57 Robinson Road and the piling work caused the cantilever action to come to a new equilibrium. If there had been no construction activities at the site, the hairline cracks which existed in the sub-station may have become worse over time but only marginally. The immediate cause of the serious cracks observed in the sub-station in August 1995 was the removal of the structure at 57 Robinson Road and the construction activities conducted there. The fundamental cause was, in Dr Soh’s opinion, the grossly inadequate foundation.
[53] Whatever Dr Soh’s views may be as to the inadequacy of the foundations of the sub-station, the fact remains that until construction activities started at 57 Robinson Road, AA Building including the sub-station was in a sound condition. As Dr Pugh pointed out, the sub-station had borne the weight of the 4-storey annex for some 25 years. There had been some differential settlement after the annex was constructed on top of the sub-station but this settlement had, as evidenced by the first Graham Miller report, stabilised before the works started. Dr Soh himself agreed that if no construction work had taken place there would have been only marginal worsening of the hairline cracks in the sub-station. The construction activities interfered with and disrupted the existing stable position. Whilst the sub-station did not have a piled foundation this did not mean that the foundation was grossly inadequate. The foundation was adequate for the original one-storey sub-station. What perhaps transformed adequacy into inadequacy was the construction of part of the annex over the sub-station. Dr Pugh, however, whilst agreeing that he would not have designed the foundations for the annex in the way they were designed, considered that it was reasonable for the engineer to provide for the annex to have mixed foundations including support from the sub-station and that the design had proved its adequacy in practice. I accept that evidence.
[54] The immediate cause of the damage was the work done by OHK and Falcon. This alone does not establish liability. The plaintiffs’ case is that the first three defendants are liable in negligence because they:
(a) failed to underpin or provide temporary supports of any or any sufficient nature to counteract the removal of the natural support to the plaintiffs’ land and AA Building; and
(b) demolished, excavated and constructed in close proximity to AA Building when they knew or should have known that such construction activities could cause damage including a collapse or subsidence of the plaintiffs’ land and building.
Falcon and OHK are responsible because they carried out their work negligently. As against Da Zhong, the plaintiffs also put their case on the basis of strict liability. They say Da Zhong owed a strict duty of support to AA Building and once this support was removed by OHK, Da Zhong was responsible for the consequences.
[55] Before construction work started, Da Zhong commissioned soil tests at 57 Robinson Road. The borelog sample taken showed that the first five layers of the soil comprised, in descending order, 0.8m of concrete and hardcore, 2.9m of stiff silty clay with gravel, 13.8m of soft marine clay, 5.5m of stiff silty clay, 3m of firm marine clay. The bore hole location was near the back lane and close to AA Building. The soil beneath AA Building would have been similar since, as Mr Patterson-Kane agreed, the borelog showed soil conditions that were reasonably typical of the area. He also emphasised the presence of the 13.8m thick layer of soft compressible upper marine clay which as he stated had low shear strength and bearing capacity and would undergo high consolidation if significant vertical loads were applied leading to large ground settlements.
[56] The first three defendants should have been aware of the results of this soil test and of the vulnerable nature of the soil in the area of the site and below the AA Building. Before OHK started work, they and Da Zhong would also have been aware of the contents of the first Graham Miller report. They would have known that settlement activity had taken place under the sub-station as evidenced by the cracking seen. Neither Da Zhong nor OHK make any enquiries or investigations of the foundations of AA Building prior to commencement of their works even though the extensive cracking in the back lane façade would have suggested to an expert engineer (as it did to Mr Patterson-Kane) that the foundations of the annex were possibly shallow. It was clear also from Mr Patterson-Kane’s evidence that construction activities at 57 Robinson Road were bound to affect AA Building unless sufficient protective measures were put in place.
[57] In was Dr Pugh’s evidence that the method of construction adopted by OHK was inappropriate. He also opined that the methods and precautions taken later after the damage had been sustained should have been adopted in the first instance. OHK started work on 15 March 1995. The first cracks were noted slightly less than two weeks later and this was before the actual demolition began in April 1995. OHK, however, took no steps to reduce the impact of their work. They did not erect any temporary retaining wall between 57 Robinson Road and AA Building. They did not produce any other type of underpinning or temporary support to counteract the removal or interference with the support to AA Building. It should also be noted that the building permit issued to the first three defendants imposed an obligation on the professional engineer in charge of the project to take all necessary precautionary measures and constantly monitor the effects of piling/excavation works to ensure that the adjacent properties were not damaged or disturbed, and to prop up the affected surrounding structures to prevent damage if the damage was likely to be caused by the construction works. In my judgment, OHK was negligent in the way they conducted their demolition works in view of the conditions existing on site. It was their removal of the support which both the building on 57 Robinson Road and the land beneath that building gave to AA Building that caused the cracking and the subsidence which I have detailed above.
[58] Moving on to Falcon, they too were in breach of their duty to ensure that AA Building was not affected by their works. They had a copy of the soil investigation carried out by Da Zhong. They had, or should have had, access to the first and second Graham Miller reports. They also appointed Thomas Howell to do an inspection on their behalf and from such inspection, they would have known that AA Building had already been affected by the construction works. They, however, did not take any immediate steps to ensure that AA Building would not be further damaged when they commenced their piling works. They even started their work at the rear of the site close to the sub-station, the most vulnerable part of AA Building, without considering whether any additional support for the building should be provided. Whilst Falcon was concerned about the possible effect their works would have on the nearby MRT tunnel, they did not show as much concern about AA Building. Their project manager, Mr Theodoros Constantinou, thought it was reasonable for Falcon to assume that AA Building was properly built on piled foundations. Obviously, they had not paid sufficient attention to the results of the various survey reports. As pointed out above, both Mr Patterson-Kane and Dr Pugh agree that Falcon’s piling works caused the serious settlement problems that AA Building experienced in August 1995. It is clear also from the evidence that until work was stopped at the end of August no precautionary steps had been taken by Falcon to prevent such damage. In my judgment, they were negligent.
(iii) Liability of Da Zhong
[59] The Court of Appeal decision in Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte Ltd [2000] 3 SLR 545 laid down the principle that a landowner in Singapore has a duty not to cause damage to his neighbour’s land by excavating or otherwise removing his land without first securing alternative means of support. It also held that this right would be infringed as soon as, but not until, damage was sustained in consequence of the withdrawal of that support.
[60] When Da Zhong decided to redevelop 57 Robinson Road they had a duty to consider whether their construction activities would remove support from AA Building and to take steps to ensure that the removal of such support would not cause damage to AA Building. This duty could not be delegated and therefore the appointment by Da Zhong of independent demolition contractors and piling contractors did not relieve them of their obligation to ensure that there were sufficient alternative means of support for AA Building before the work of demolishing the building at 57 Robinson Road and the excavation of that site commenced. Whilst Da Zhong did appoint a professional engineer for the project, this did not result in any alternative means of support for AA Building being provided prior to the commencement of construction activities on the site. As I have stated, the evidence shows that OHK’s activities resulted in AA Building losing the support it had enjoyed from both the building and the land at 57 Robinson Road. Da Zhong, having failed to prevent this loss of support, is also liable for the damage that resulted.
[61] What about Falcon’s work? The support of the land and building at 57 Robinson Road had been removed before Falcon started work. In these circumstances, would Da Zhong be responsible under the Xpress Print principle for the damage that those piling works created? Dr Soh’s opinion was that the withdrawal of the support of 57 Robinson Road and the piling work caused the cantilever action (ie the manner in which the adjacent beams of 57 Robinson Road supported the sub-station) ‘to come to a new equilibrium’. By this he meant that these works had caused the sub-station to settle dramatically in August 1995. The amount of settlement found was about 25 mm. Dr Soh saw wide cracks when he came on site in August 1995 and was very concerned about the cracks widening further. At the time he expressed the opinion that the structure of the sub-station had already reached the stage where it might not be able to sustain any further settlement. Dr Pugh’s opinion was that the vibrations resulting from the piling could have caused the soil under the foundation of the sub-station to densify and then the foundation to subside. The densification and subsidence would in his view occur almost immediately in response to the vibration although the movement would continue after the vibration had ceased. Mr Patterson-Kane also expressed the view that the piling works caused additional ground settlement beneath the sub-station though he considered the substandard foundation of the sub-station to be a major contributing factor to the damage which AA Building sustained.
[62] On the evidence of the experts therefore, the consensus seems to be that in one way or another, the piling works which Falcon did interfered with the support which the sub-station had previously enjoyed. The initial effect of withdrawal of support manifested itself whilst OHK was at work. Da Zhong had a duty to ensure that the further works carried out by Falcon did not aggravate the damage arising from the withdrawal of support or further interfere with the support of that building. In my view, such a duty would be part of the duty established by Xpress Print. Da Zhong did not fulfil that duty and therefore must also be held liable for the damage resulting from Falcon’s work. This liability would encompass all damage caused by such work including any damage occurring after Da Zhong leased the site to FCAL. Since the work took place before the lease took effect, I do not have to consider whether Xpress Print would impose a duty on Da Zhong as landowner for works commissioned by the lessee under a long term lease.
(iv) Repairs and rectification
[63] The first three defendants submitted that whatever damage their construction activities had caused, these had been rectified and repaired. The danger to the structural stability of AA Building had been removed by the installation of supports and AA Building had been protected from the effect of further construction works on the site. There are two issues here. The first is whether the stability problem that AA Building experienced has been solved and the second is whether the other damage such as cracking and debonding of tiles has been repaired.
[64] Dr Soh was appointed by Da Zhong to design a system that would stop all settlement of AA Building. His proposal was submitted on 1 November 1995. It contained two elements. The first was in respect of measures to be taken to prevent works on the site interfering with the support of AA Building. The suggested remedy was to emplace sheet-piling all along the boundary between AA Building and the site. Secondly, measures to strengthen the foundation of the sub-station were suggested. These were to construct external steel frames and then pin AA Building onto the new building at 57 Robinson Road and also to erect struts inside the sub-station.
[65] Following Dr Soh’s advice, a steel frame was constructed on two external walls of the sub-station, the one facing the construction site and the other facing the back lane. The frame itself was supported by two rows of sheet-piles driven to hard ground along the side of the sub-station facing the construction site. These were tied up by strong capping beams. According to Dr Soh the whole system formed a solid support supporting all the structural loading from the annex. Dr Soh’s opinion, based on the evidence that he had seen, was that these works stopped the settlement and rendered the sub-station stable and able to stand for at least the next 30 years without any problem. The plaintiffs themselves noted during an inspection at the sub-station on 8 April 1996, after the remedial works were done, that there was no apparent deterioration visible inside the sub-station although some line cracks were seen externally on the front entrance.
[66] The plaintiffs’ evidence on the resolution of the stability problem was less positive. Among the documents adduced were two reports from a professional engineer, Mr Tan Si Jue, of the firm of Uni-Associated Consultants. In December 1999, he was asked to conduct a visual inspection of AA Building in the manner prescribed under s 28 of the Building Control Act (Cap 29); to record all structural defects observed during the inspection and to prepare and submit a report to the building authority. In the conclusion to his report issued in early 2000, Mr Tan noted that he had seen structural defects at the 4-storey section adjoining 57 Robinson Road and Boon Tat Link. At the corner of this particular section, there was a visible settlement and cracks on the floor slab and walls were observed at the first, second, third and fourth storeys. Mr Tan opined that these cracks were mostly due to uneven settlement of the foundation arising from the effects of the adjacent construction. Other cracks which he noticed on the wall facing Boon Tat Link at the second, third and fourth storey were probably due to the effects of the basement construction at the Kajima site. He recommended continuation of close monitoring of cracks and tilting of façade and columns for another six months and then the carrying out of rectification works to prevent further uneven settlement. On 22 March 2000, in answer to some queries on his report, Mr Tan advised the plaintiffs that the overall structure of the building was still stable and sound.
[67] In April 2001, Mr Tan carried out another inspection of AA Building. He noted the defects found and concluded that there was one localised area at the rear corner of the building which was under structural distress. Mr Tan considered that the overall structural integrity of the building was not in jeopardy but advised that it was prudent to carry out strengthening work to support the rear corner of the building that had already been weakened by the defective corner column. Mr Tan’s views can only be gauged from his reports as the plaintiffs did not call on him to testify.
[68] Dr Pugh considered that AA Building had structural defects and that the remedy for this would be demolition and rebuilding of the annex. He based this recommendation on the following considerations:
(1) the settlements inferred by the level surveys, the observed damage and the result of the structural analyses suggested to him that the structure had deflected in excess of ‘normal design values’.
(2) the loading factor at foundation level is now considerably altered from that as designed and the present factors of safety on the piles are unknown. It was possible that some piles are at, or in excess of, ultimate capacity.
(3) there is clear evidence that structural failure has occurred in the vicinity of the cantilever beams at second storey (first floor) level.
(4) significant overloading of some frame members is likely to have occurred.
Under cross-examination, however, he confirmed that AA Building was not in danger of imminent collapse and agreed that it was safe for the foreseeable future. He also agreed that the measures proposed by Dr Soh were generally effective to provide support and prevent earth movement. Dr Pugh also agreed that if he had been asked to advise on safety measures at the relevant time, he would probably have recommended something along the same lines as proposed by Dr Soh.
[69] It should also be noted that, under cross-examination, Dr Soh conceded that he had never commented on the structural stability of AA Building from 1995 up to the date he appeared in court. He stated that the side support could never be removed as it has been built into Robinson Centre. The rear support could be removed but there was a possibility of hairline cracks appearing. As far as the internal scaffolds were concerned, he was not sure whether they should or should not be removed. At another point in his cross-examination Dr Soh agreed that it would be unsafe to remove the external steel support that had been affixed to AA Building unless a structural engineer certified that it would be safe to do so. From the beginning, his view had been that once he had taken steps to stop the settlement at the sub-station, an engineer hired by the plaintiffs should make a thorough investigation of the structural stability of AA Building. It is also relevant that in April 1997, DE Consultants asked Falcon to remove the internal struts installed in the sub-station. Mr Constantinou wrote Dr Soh for his opinion and the reply was that the struts should remain for the moment. Dr Soh had not thereafter advised Falcon that the struts could be removed. Up to the day of the trial, Falcon had not received any report from a professional engineer stating that all the external and internal supports could be removed without the structure or integrity of the building being affected.
[70] The weight of the evidence indicates that the structure of AA Building is no longer as sound as it was before work at the site began. Some long term measures have to be implemented to improve its stability although the building is not likely to collapse. The works undertaken by Falcon have not provided a complete solution since, for the building to remain stable, all supports have to remain in place. This is not a problem insofar as the frame built into the side of the building facing 57 Robinson Road is concerned since it is completely covered by the new Robinson Centre. The supports on the façade facing Boon Tat Link are, however, apparent to all and are unsightly. Whilst the struts inside the sub-station are not visible externally, they, along with the external scaffolding, were intended as temporary supports and should not be converted into permanent supports if other less obtrusive methods of structural strengthening are available. On the first sub-issue therefore, I conclude that whilst the immediate settlement problem was rectified and adequate steps were taken to prevent the continuation of construction works from causing the sub-station and the annex to collapse, these steps have not completely restored AA Building to the state of structural integrity that it enjoyed in February 1995. If the building were to be reinstated, work would have to be undertaken to provide sufficient support so that the scaffolding facing Boon Tat Link and the struts in the sub-station can be removed.
[71] The second issue is whether the first three defendants have repaired all the other damage which their works inflicted on AA Building.
[72] Mr Constantinou’s evidence was relied on by Falcon to show that it had repaired all the damage it had caused to AA Building. He stated that in September 1995, he was shown damage sustained by unit 02-01 and in November 1995, he was shown damage sustained by unit 04-07. The cracks in unit 04-07 were repaired in January 1996. Then piling works recommenced and further complaints of cracking were received from the plaintiffs. Even though Falcon had left the site in July 1996, Mr Constantinou arranged for an inspection of the building on 4 September 1996. At that inspection he was shown water stains behind units 03-11 to 03-15 and 04-03. He was also shown cracks in unit 03-03 which were allegedly new. All this damage had not been previously made known to Falcon and Mr Constantinou doubted that the water seepage and cracks were due to his piling work. However, to put a stop to the plaintiffs’ complaints, a further inspection was carried out in December 1996 and all areas to be repaired were identified and marked out. Thereafter, Falcon proceeded to repair the building. In January 1997, Falcon sent DE Consultants a letter setting out the list of defects that they had rectified. On the basis of Falcon’s evidence on repairs done, the first to third defendants submitted that any damage noted subsequently had been caused by the other contractors who took over the site from 1999 onwards and were not their responsibility.
[73] The plaintiffs do not accept that all damage caused by the first three defendants has been repaired. They point out that the only witness from OHK, Mr Ong Hoo Kim, conceded that OHK’s work caused cracks for which OHK accept responsibility and that OHK did not repair those cracks. Apart from the cracks, it was also clear from the evidence that the floor in unit 04-03 which had sunk had not been rectified and the sunken floor was still visible to the eye. Dr Pugh had seen it when he first inspected the building in June 2001. Da Zhong had known about the subsidence of the floor shortly after it happened and, as Mr Goh admitted, they knew that such subsidence was a very serious thing. No steps, however, had been taken to rectify this sunken floor. As late as May 2001, Da Zhong had written proposing to repair the damage caused by the work of the first three defendants. Finally, whilst Falcon may have repaired some of the crack damage that had manifested itself by end of 1996, the plaintiffs submitted that damage continued to show up in the subsequent survey reports commissioned by the defendants. These reports had been analysed by Dr Pugh who prepared a series of charts showing the various cracks seen by the surveyors over the years.
[74] Dr Pugh noted that in a survey by Insight dated 22 July 1996 carried out on behalf of CKK, the damage which had occurred during demolition as noted by the plaintiffs and the first Thomas Howell survey was still apparent. This survey also picked up the damage caused by the early part of the piling as noted by the plaintiffs and the second Thomas Howell survey. Insight also surveyed the sub-station for CKK on 30 July 1996. The damage to the sub-station was as previously noted but the cracks had been repaired. The next survey was undertaken between 30 June and 4 July 1997 by Crawford THG (Singapore) Pte Ltd (‘Crawford) for FCAL. This was a comprehensive survey of the interior and exterior of the building. Dr Pugh analysed this report and noted the following:
(1) at the first storey, there was widespread damage within the 4-storey annex none of which had been recorded in the first Graham Miller report. The damage was concentrated in the area adjacent to the sub-station, with decreasing but still significant levels of damage moving south westwards along the length of the 4-storey addition. In the sub-station, a gap was noted between the edge beam of the old roof slab of the sub-station and the edge beam of the first floor.
(2) at the second storey, there was widespread damage in the annex in the vicinity of the sub-station, extending back along the rear to the plaintiffs’ directors’ restroom at the junction with the 7-storey building. The survey also reported that the floor in the plaintiffs’ office pantry area appeared to be sagging and the windows on the rear façade, in the managing director’s room, were lopsided with 10mm displacement gaps to the frames.
(3) the pattern of damage observed in the first and second storeys was found at the third storey and displacement of windows was also recorded on the rear façade at the eastern corner (the rear corner closest to 57 Robinson Road).
(4) at the fourth floor, a similar pattern of damage to that noted on the lower floors was found.
(5) the fifth, sixth and seventh storeys had crack damage in the vicinity of the toilets, lifts and lobby areas and in the vicinity of the expansion joints.

The judgment continues past this page. Read the rest at eLitigation.

Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd v Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd and Others

Grounds of decision

Introduction

Summary of events leading up to the action

Events in 1995

Events in 1996

Events in 1997

Events in 1998 and thereafter

The action

The plaintiffs’ case against the first, second and third defendants

(i) Condition of AA Building before construction work started

(ii) Damage caused to AA Building

(iii) Liability of Da Zhong

(iv) Repairs and rectification