Ngiam kong seng v lim chiew hock – Factual foresseability was not satisfied.

1st appellant got injured who is related to the 2nd appellant – caused psychiartric harm to the 2nd
appellant – but subsequently she found out that the taxi driver was actually the cause of the accident. It
was not reasonable foreseeable.

Is the direct between the conduct and loss claim – you were negligent in causing the accident – and you
sued you because you caused the accident – assumption of responsibility and reliance.

What are the relevant proximity factors?

 David Tan identifies several factors pursuant to the Australian ‘salient features’ approach
o Control by defendant of risk of harm
o Vulnerability of class of persons to which plaintiff belongs
o Assumption of responsibility by defendant
o Reasonable reliance by plaintiff on defendant to take care

Is there any policy considerations which negate the duty of care – the policy cannot come before
proximity - in order for DOC to arise – there is no legal proximity – arguably in that case the spandeck
test is not satisfied. –

It is the existence of a contract that has clearly defined the right and liabilities of the parties and the
relative bargaining position of the parties.

Upholding standards of competence and diligence for the legal profession

Rammificatiosn to the communication of bads; inhibitiosn communication, chilling effect.

Even though it is legally proximate – will actually have a huge ramification – the news may not be
entirely accurate. There is no duty of care-

Man mohan singh – 2 children killed – court feasor the fertitlity treatment there is no fundamental right
to replace children when they have died.

Assumption of responsibility and reliance – pure economic loss cases – physical proximity is caused in a
damage case – policy factors to be considered – sometimes in a particular type of consideration - motor
accident cases a driver hits a pedestrian – work place accident cases – policy and proximity may
sometimes overlap.

There was no proximity between the parties – evidence that there was contractual agreements –
contract had chosesn to regulate their relationships by contract – the courts should not pose a doc on
those cases

Incremental approach – shouldn’t just analyse th facts – factual similar – there was legal proximity and
policy considerations. – Singapore approach to DOC.
Seminar 3

Liam kon seng – you can only claim for recognizable psychiartric illnesses – for the sake of the
manufacter – proximity – legal proximity -factual foresseable then legal proximity – the manufacturer
did produce the goods – Donoghue and Stevenson – if you manufacture a product the end consumer is
harmed the person will be liable for the hurt.

physical loss and psychiatric loss?

What is the distinguishing factors between ngiam kong seng – he really suffered the traumatic indident
himself – there is also a distinction and primary victim and secondary victim – no longer a disctinction –
it is actually foreseeable – he was the one who caused the explosion himself - therefore factual
foreseeability do fade with each other – 3 factors here – the class of persons - the means by which the
shock was caused – legal proximity on the facts – he is the consumer of the product and proximity of
him to the accident by which for him the shock was caused – these all point in favours of legal proximity
– pang koi fa v lim djoe phing – pscychiatric harm – observed the slow death of her daughter – negligent
neuro surgeon – diagnosed with PTSD - whether the dr owed a doc - the primary victim of the doctor –
the mother is the secondary victim of the dr – the effect of the negligence caused her harm – the
trauma from the close constant pain of the primary victim – that it was an analogous step forward in the
case – Pang koi FA v Lim Djoe Phing

Public policy considerations would reinforce the DOC –

If you but a product which is certified to be safe – you would assume that it would be safe – the
assumption of responsibility and reliance – you are making a representation that the product is safe –
certifying that it is safe- consumers rely on that the firecrackers are safe – in terms of these 2 – it is more
than the manufacturer and the corporation.

If the facts are such that it is safe – there is a label – I would not negate any policy considerations – there
is policy that you are upholding – what is the effect of the certification which is safe – perhaps there is
policy consideration – there is already a manufacturing duty to the consumer –

The concurrent duties owed to the consumer and also owed - there cannot be double recovery for the
same loss – 3rd party actions in civil procedure – it is possible for the manufactures if sued – I relied on
you – please indemnify me for my losses – there is a triangle of duties - i have not breached this duty
and I went to the expert

Samy and Malik own 5% and 1% of the shares etc - samy would suffer losses because the bank would
force him to sell of his shares – but it is rather remote but it is not in the sense that it boggles reality. –
they are known to each other – but the cause of the loss was the tumbling share price - assumption of
risk because roy ignored samy? – he assumed the risk of the damange and the risk of the loss – does roy
knows that samy owns any shares in the company – because samy is a director of a company – that
doesn’t mean he must be a shareholder – the causal proximity might not be there – the cause of the loss
in this case the antecedent cause was the result of the release of the report – had he held on the shares
and it was not a security because he would not have sold it – there is no much legal proximity in this
case – what are the policy conisdertiaons - policy considerations might be a duty to prevent you from
writing satirical news – and that is a policy consideration – but it has to be basis that it has to have a
legal proximity in the case.

Key difference is that malik chose to sell the shares – malik did not know roy it would be rather
outrageous that roy would owe to any shareholder in the company and nevertheless in the policy
consideratiosn would negate a doc because it would open a floodgate argument which would lead.

Assumption of responsibility and reliance – private and small time shareholder of altocorp and damaging
information – malik’s reliance was it reasonable? - regard to what is in the report – policy consideraions
– stifling communcations or the reporting of news – hedley byrne or caparo industries v dickamn which
case is more applicable – no proximity in this case – the auditors report was not meant for 3rd company’s
consumption – roy made the report for the whole world and not for himself

Any reliance on this report is on your own risk – is entitled to rely on it – depends on the wording of the
disclaimer – you can say that there is a duty of care – it is not proximate - cite hedley byrne

Equitable compensation – is common law damages/remoteness and proximity – Bristol v mothew – the
accident of history

Is it a breach of your core duty of

The core fiduciary duty of loyalty, honesty and fidelity – to act in good faith, not to make a profit out of
his trust, not to place himself in a position of conflict of interest

To disclose any potential conflict or personal interest

Duty of even-handedness between different classes of beneficiaries

Duty of conscientiousness – to take all precautions in the management of trust property as an ordinary
prudent man of business would take in his own fairs (ng eng ghee)

Statutory duties in the trustee act – part of the hypo – s3A the statutory doc – common law and
statutory duty co-exist – professional trustee in his court of experience.

Sect 5 – standard investment criteria, including the suitability of investments of the same kind and the
need for diversification

Sect 6 – to obtain proper advice before exercising a power of investment or whether investmenets
should be varid

But advice need not be obtained if the trustee reasonably concludes

Duty to act in the best interests – duty of conscientiousness – this might be possibly be a breach of
trustees best interests he took his own aversions – to have his best financial prospects – he will not be
liable for anything because there was no loss cause – but-for causation is required when we talk about
equitable considerations – it is not the facet of a duty – foreseeability all apply – no loss to the trust fund
– there are no loss and there is no liability for the breach of trust –

He is lucky that he is not liable for any damages because no loss was suffered.

Breach of duty of impartiality – if Charlie exercises his discretion to invest in George – his company will
make money – breach of duty of acting in the best interest of the beneficiaries – is there another
internet start up as compared to 2 the one he invested it which have better prospects.

Arguable not liable – if there is a breach of trust – then he is opening himself to potential liability down
the road – if the prospects are not good is that a loss of opportunity in another company –

Question C – a breach of duty of conscientiousness and breach of common law - to determine use the
trust property in good well – s3(4) reasonably qualified to give advice – there are 2 ways to analyse the
breach – the 1st is that you shouldn’t approached Tanya in the first place - but for causation is required
– also subject to doctrines of foreseeability and remoteness. But for test is easily proved – Charlie
invested

He relied on his solicitor and not a wine expert which could give him a proper advice and s3A and 6 of
the trustees act because he only relied on simon’s remarks and di not go to another’s advice – causation
because its breached of one of the core fiduciary duties – If he had conduct his own research it would
have been priced at the same value and that he could not have reasonable foresee that using illegal
chemicals and it is not something that a wine expert would have known. – causation not satisfied

Remoteness – loss is too remote – not foreseeable that illegal chemiclas are used in the pressing
process.