Dear List Members,

The Singapore Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the important case of MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v. Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 36. This case considers whether Singapore should follow the controversial assumption of responsibility test for remoteness of damage in contract advocated by Lord Hoffmann in Transfield Shipping Inc v. Mercator Shipping Inc (“The Achilleas”), or continue to be apply the approach of Alderson B. in the decision of Hadley v. Baxendale, without Lord Hoffmann’s gloss.

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA delivered the learned and thorough judgment of the Court, which consults a wide range of academic writings, including those of a number of members of this list. The Court dealt with the issue of remoteness from [72]-[142].

The Court noted a number of both theoretical as well as practical difficulties with Lord Hoffmann’s suggested approach, and concluded that the approach advocated by Lord Hoffmann in The Achilleas was not to be followed in Singapore and that the two limbs set out in Hadley (as elaborated upon and explained by the Singapore case of Robertson Quay) continued to be the governing principles in relation to the doctrine of remoteness of damage in contract law in the Singapore context. The Achilleas is not the law in Singapore, except to the extent that Lord Hoffmann’s reliance on the concept of assumption of responsibility by the defendant is already incorporated or embodied in both limbs in Hadley itself.

The full judgment:

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/judgment/11671.html

Kind regards,
___________________________

Phillip Morgan
Lecturer in Contract and Tort Law
Senior Tutor (Year 2)
School of Law
University of Southampton
Highfield
Southampton SO17 1BJ
Phillip.Morgan@soton.ac.uk

http://www.law.soton.ac.uk/
http://www.soton.ac.uk/law/staff/academicstaff/morgan_phillip.html