| dbo:abstract |
Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37 was a landmark decision in Singapore law. It established a new framework for establishing a duty of care, differentiating the Singaporean law of tort from past English common law precedent such as Caparo v Dickman and Anns v Merton, whilst also allowing for claims in pure economic loss, which are generally not allowed in English law. (en) |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink |
https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2008_SGCA_23 |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
71636243 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
11988 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1121555924 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:Precedent dbr:Pure_economic_loss dbr:English_tort_law dbr:Prima_facie dbr:Defence_Science_and_Technology_Agency dbr:Arbitration_clause dbr:Duty_of_care dbr:Court_of_Appeal_of_Singapore dbr:Anns_v_Merton_London_Borough_Council dbr:Negligence dbr:Novation dbr:Damages dbr:Andrew_Phang dbr:Common_law dbr:Murphy_v_Brentwood_DC dbr:Tort dbr:Hedley_Byrne_&_Co_Ltd_v_Heller_&_Partners_Ltd dbr:Law_of_Singapore dbc:Court_of_Appeal_of_Singapore_cases dbr:Chan_Sek_Keong dbr:V_K_Rajah dbr:Donoghue_v_Stevenson dbr:Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman dbr:Anns_v_Merton dbr:Murphy_v_Brentwood_District_Council dbr:Caparo_v_Dickman dbr:Sutherland_Shire_Council_v_Heyman dbr:Ngiam_Kong_Seng_v_Lim_Chiew_Hock |
| dbp:citations |
(en) [2007] 4 SLR 100 (en) [2007] SGCA 37 (en) |
| dbp:court |
dbr:Court_of_Appeal_of_Singapore |
| dbp:dateDecided |
8 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:fullName |
Spandeck Engineering Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency (en) |
| dbp:judges |
(en) Andrew Phang (en) V K Rajah (en) Chan Sek Keong (en) |
| dbp:keywords |
Negligence (en) (en) Tort (en) Duty of care (en) |
| dbp:numberOfJudges |
3 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:opinions |
A duty of care can be established through a two-stage test. First, a prime facie duty of care arises when there is proximity. Two, the prima facie duty can be negated from policy considerations. A threshold of foreseeability exists for the test to be applied. (en) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Cite_bailii dbt:Cite_BAILII dbt:Infobox_court_case |
| dcterms:subject |
dbc:Court_of_Appeal_of_Singapore_cases |
| rdfs:comment |
Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37 was a landmark decision in Singapore law. It established a new framework for establishing a duty of care, differentiating the Singaporean law of tort from past English common law precedent such as Caparo v Dickman and Anns v Merton, whilst also allowing for claims in pure economic loss, which are generally not allowed in English law. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
wikidata:Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency https://global.dbpedia.org/id/GqtSH |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:Spandeck_Engineering_v_Defence_Science...chnology_Agency?oldid=1121555924&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:Spandeck_Engineering_v_Defence_Science_and_Technology_Agency |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:Index_of_Singapore-related_articles dbr:Tort dbr:Law_of_Singapore dbr:ACRES_v_Tan_Boon_Kwee |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:Spandeck_Engineering_v_Defence_Science_and_Technology_Agency |