Serious Plaza Singapura Blackout Today 23 Sept! Ice Cream All Melted! No Lights, No Aircon! Tenants Bravely Do Bizness In The Dark! So Romantic!

[bobby]

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Talk about going backwards. 1st world country indeed..

 

[WongMengMeng]

Ang mor courts have far less credibility than our courts. Our judiciary system is more widely respected.

Singapore courts will not entertain such frivolous claims. Sinkies know that they are expected to go in with their eyes opened. Frivolous lawsuits such as trying to get rich through injury claims usually end in failure.

Frivolous my foot!

The law of Occupier’s Liability is alive and well in Sinkieland. CAPITALAND like PAP think Sinkies are mostly bodoh and they may well be right, especially about those grass loot Leeders:

Occupiers’ liability is a legal rule Singapore inherited from English common law. This rule has since undergone radical change, as a result of the decision by the Singapore Court of Appeal, in the 2013 landmark case, See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement Pte Ltd (“See Toh“).

Who is an occupier
An occupier is a person who has some degree of control over the particular premises. This control usually includes some influence over the state of the premises, and the power of permitting or prohibiting entry by other persons. THIS INCLUDES CAPITALAND!

As an example, a HDB flat owner may be regarded as the occupier of the flat.

The old rule as to occupiers’ liability
It used to be that dual concurrent responsibilities were imposed on an occupier of premises. These responsibilities were provided for in two separate areas of law – namely, the tort of negligence, and occupiers’ liability.

The law as to occupiers’ liability differentiated between three types of entrants – invitees, licensees, and trespassers. The occupier owed varying standards of care to these three different entrants. Invitees were owed the highest duty, followed by licensees and trespassers.

As to the law of negligence in Singapore, a brief overview of the subject may be found here.

The new rule as to occupiers’ liability
The Court of Appeal saw the fault in the seemingly arbitrary and cumbersome distinctions between the three types of entrants. The Court found the time was ripe to reform and subsume the doctrine of occupiers’ liability into the law of negligence. In doing so the Court stated that “… modern conditions require a modern tort of negligence which subsumes within it the law on occupiers’ liability”.

In Singapore, the decision in Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency (“Spandeck“) is definitive on the law of negligence. The test as to whether a duty of care was owed by the plaintiff to the defendant, as established in Spandeck, depended on three elements:

1. Factual foreseeability;
2. Legal proximity between the parties, in the form of physical, circumstantial, or causal proximity; and
3. Public policy considerations.

As a result of the judgment in See Toh, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Spandeck test on the duty of care is comprehensive and would be applied to future cases of liability involving occupiers. It appears that occupiers’ liability is now a subset of the law of negligence.

When would occupiers be liable under the new rule
The Court of Appeal in See Toh laid down the following principles.

The test for factual foreseeability was met in the case of occupiers as it would be foreseeable that entrants would suffer damage if occupiers did not take reasonable care to eliminate danger.

There was undoubtedly physical proximity between an occupier and an entrant merely by virtue of the fact that the entrant was physically situated on the occupier’s property. In so far as lawful entrants were concerned, circumstantial proximity was tautologically present in the occupier-lawful entrant relationship because the hallmark of a lawful entrant’s presence on an occupier’s premises was consent to his presence on the part of the occupier.

Therefore, the vast majority of occupiers having control of the property which they occupied and/or the activities carried out there de jure owed a prima facie duty of care to lawful entrants.

Occupiers were not to be viewed as insurers of the safety of their property; their duty was merely to exercise reasonable care.

Trespassers were a residual class of persons who did not have any legal justification for being on an occupier’s premises, and was an unsatisfactory protean term covering both the wicked and the innocent. It was impossible to hold that occupiers de jure owed a blanket duty of care to all trespassers. Whether or not a prima facie duty of care arose vis-à-vis a residual entrant had to depend on all circumstances of the case. The key was culpability on the part of the entrant.

The Court would ask whether a particular entrant’s circumstances of entry were lawful. If they were lawful a prima facie duty of care arose because sufficient legal proximity had to, by definition, be present. Where the circumstances of entry were unlawful, the test in Spandeck will still be applied in full, as to the questions of factual foreseeability and proximity, and whether policy considerations ought to negative the existence of a duty of care.

https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/occupiers-liability-in-singapore/

 

[Sir_Fcuk]

Halimah glowing in the dark?

she cunt even fuck in the dark