Ng Chong Ping v Ng Chih-Ming Daren and others (Richwood Design Pte Ltd, third party; Archideas Design Inc, fourth party)

Choo Han Teck J:

[1] The plaintiff is a gardener and landscape designer employed by Teo Landscape and Maintenance (“the Company”). The first and second defendants (“the defendants”) are owners of the property at 382A Lorong Chuan (“the Property”). On 14 January 2012, the defendants engaged the services of the Company to carry out gardening and landscape maintenance services on the Property. The plaintiff was deployed by the Company on that day to work on the Property and was permitted by the defendants to enter the said Property. The plaintiff was carrying out weeding works along the front boundary wall of the Property when the boundary wall suddenly collapsed on him. The plaintiff was pinned to the ground under the weight of the collapsed wall till he was rescued by his co-worker and some neighbours. He suffered severe injuries to his spinal cord and lower limbs.

[2] The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendants as owners of the Property for failing to take reasonable care in ensuring that the boundary wall was safe, and that the plaintiff would be reasonably safe in carrying out his services on the Property. The plaintiff claimed for damages for personal injuries, loss, and expenses suffered as a result of the collapse of the boundary wall. The defendants were the immediate and obvious tortfeasor for the plaintiff to sue.

[3] The defendants then alleged that it was Richwood Design Pte Ltd, the main contractors previously engaged to carry out renovation works on the Property, who was responsible for the collapse of the boundary wall. The renovation works carried out by Richwood Design Pte Ltd allegedly included alteration works to the front boundary wall of the Property. The defendants claimed against Richwood Design Pte Ltd and sought to enjoin them as third party to the proceedings.

[4] Richwood Design Pte Ltd (“the third party”), in turn, then brought a claim against Archideas Design Inc (“the fourth party”) as designers of the front boundary wall of the Property, alleging that it was the fourth party who had assessed the condition of the wall, and instructed the third party to replace the existing “fair faced bricks” with “vertical mild steel fencing”. As such, the third party alleged that it was the fourth party who was responsible for the collapse of the wall.

(a) Costs of $2,500 (all-in) are to be paid by the plaintiff to the third party being the costs of the application.

(b) Costs of $800 (all-in) are to be paid by the plaintiff to the fourth party being the costs of the application.

(c) Costs of $500 are to be paid by the plaintiff to the third party being the costs of the pre-trial conference of 20 January 2015.

(d) Costs of $1,856.80 are to be paid by the plaintiff to the third party being cost thrown away in the fourth party proceedings.

[9] In the present case, the plaintiff had insufficient grounds or knowledge as to the involvement of the third and fourth parties to join them in the action initially. Given the action and demeanour of the defendants in placing the blame on the third party (and thereafter the third party placing the blame on the fourth party), the plaintiff is entitled to join either or both of them as defendants.

[10] It is the prerogative of the plaintiff to join either or both as defendants and he cannot be compelled to do so, but he must accept the consequences should the trial judge find that the defendants are not liable and that liability falls on either or both the third and fourth parties.