In Singapore, there is no particular legislation solely dedicated to setting out liabilities that might arise owing to the manufacture, distribution or supply of a defective product. Rather, product liability laws span across a wide range of statutes as well as common law.

Product regulation and liability issues span a number of laws and regulations in Singapore, as specific laws cater to different types of products. For instance, the Sale of Food Act and the Food Regulations deal with food products. Medical devices and drugs (otherwise known as therapeutic products) are regulated under the Health Products Act. General consumer goods and controlled goods (mainly household electrical appliances) fall under one or both of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act. The respective regulators and their ambits of enforcement for these categories of products will be examined in greater detail in the next section.


Thee various government bodies that oversee the regulation of products include:

  • a the Medical Device Branch of the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), which regulates medical devices in Singapore;
  • b the Therapeutic Products Branch of the HSA, which focuses on therapeutic products;
  • c the Land Transport Authority, which regulates vehicles by requiring their registration and that these vehicles be compliant with registration and technical requirements;
  • d the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board of Singapore (SPRING Singapore), which regulates general consumer goods and ensures that the goods supplied are safe; and
  • e the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), which regulates the import and sale of food.2

Such powers of regulatory oversight are provided for by the relevant laws and regulations. For example, section 12G of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA)3 provides SPRING Singapore with the power to conduct an investigation if it has reasonable grounds for suspecting, inter alia, that a supplier has engaged, is engaging or is likely to engage in an unfair practice. This power to conduct investigations is supplemented by ancillary powers, such as the power to apply for an injunction to restrain a person from knowingly abetting, aiding, permitting or procuring a supplier to engage in an unfair practice,4 and the power to require documents, articles or information.5 The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) also administers certain aspects of the CPFTA and handles consumer complaints generally.

The Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations (CPSRR)6 and Consumer Protection (Consumer Goods Safety Requirements) Regulations 2011 (CGSR),7 issued pursuant to the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act,8 provide SPRING Singapore with the power to monitor the safety of certain goods known as controlled goods (e.g., household electrical, electronic and gas products), and general consumer goods respectively.


There are six causes of action under which a manufacturer, distributor or seller (MDS) may be held liable for injury to persons or damage to chattels or property as a result of a defective product.

i Breach of contract

To rely on this cause of action, there must be a valid and legally binding contract between the claimant and the MDS of the product. Also, there must have been a breach by the MDS of either an express or an implied contractual term.

While express contractual terms and implied terms in fact are contract-specific, terms implied in law apply more uniformly across contracts of a similar kind. For instance, in a contract where a seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality,9 namely they should meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.10 The same applies for a contract where the transferor transfers the property in goods in the course of a business.11 Where these standards are not met, it is most likely possible to succeed in a claim for a contractual breach of an implied term.

One exception is where the unsatisfactory quality of the goods had been specifically drawn to the buyer’s or transferee’s attention before the contract was made. Another exception is where the buyer or transferee had examined the goods before the contract was made, and that examination ought to have revealed the unsatisfactory quality of the goods.12

ii Tort of negligence

An MDS may be held liable for injury to persons or property caused by the negligent manufacture, distribution or supply of a product.

To establish negligence, a claimant must prove that the MDS owes a duty of care to the claimant.13 Most often, the court would find that a manufacturer owes end consumers a duty of care to ensure that the goods do not cause injury or harm to the latters.14 Similarly, the court may find that a distributor owes a duty of care to the end consumers to check the safety of what it distributes.15 Next, the claimant must show that the manufacturer has breached that duty of care by acting below the required standard of care.16 In addition, the breach must have resulted in damage to the claimant. This damage can be physical, psychiatric or economic in nature.17 Finally, any resulting losses cannot be too remote, and should be adequately proved and quantified.18

iii Misrepresentation

A claimant can sue a seller for fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation.

To establish fraudulent misrepresentation, the claimant must show that the seller knew or believed the representation about the goods to be false,19 or did not believe in the truth of the representation, when it was made.20 If the claimant is unable to do so, but is able to prove that the representation was made negligently, he or she may claim under the tort of negligence (see subsection ii, supra). Meanwhile, if the seller had neither acted fraudulently nor negligently, the claimant may only be able to sue for innocent misrepresentation. Under the Misrepresentation Act,21 a person will be entitled to rescind a contract for innocent misrepresentation or claim damages in lieu of rescission.22

iv Claims under the CPFTA

A claim for product liability may also arise if a seller had entered into a transaction with an individual (who is not acting exclusively in the course of business), namely a consumer, and had engaged in unfair practices.23 An unfair practice is relevant to product liability insofar as an MDS, for instance, makes a false or misleading claim in relation to the product being sold (e.g.,advertising that a product is safe to use when it is actually not).

Even in the absence of an unfair practice, a seller would still owe obligations to the individual if the goods that have been ordered from the seller do not conform to the applicable contract at the time of delivery. Specifically, the seller is required to repair or replace the goods, to allow the individual to pay less for the goods by an appropriate amount, or to allow the individual to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.24 These provisions in the CPFTA are also known colloquially as ‘lemon laws’.

An aggrieved individual may seek to sue the seller regarding the unfair practice,25 though the amount claimed cannot exceed S$30,000.26 Should the claim be above S$30,000, the individual has the option of abandoning the excess and recovering only an amount within the prescribed limit, which would be in full discharge of all demands in respect of that cause of action.27

v Filing a complaint with CASE

An affected consumer may also file a complaint with CASE to report a supplier that has engaged in an unfair practice. CASE is empowered to invite the supplier to enter into a voluntary compliance agreement, which may require the supplier to:

  • a compensate any consumer who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the unfair practice;
  • b reimburse CASE for any costs or expenses incurred by it; and
  • c publicise the voluntary compliance agreement.28
vi Failure to comply with regulations
Controlled goods

If an importer or manufacturer in Singapore intends, in the course of any trade or business to supply or advertise for supply any controlled goods29 in Singapore, but fails to be registered or fails to register any of the said controlled goods, it will be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding S$2,000 or to imprisonment, or both, for a term not exceeding 12 months.30 The same punishment applies if an MDS does not recall controlled goods as required by SPRING Singapore.31

Non-controlled goods

If an MDS supplies goods that have been publicly declared as unsafe for failing to conform to prescribed safety standards32 in Singapore in the course of trade or business, it will be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding S$2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.33 A second or subsequent offence will attract higher penalties.

Offences by corporations

Where an offence is proven to have been committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of an officer of the company, the officer as well as the company may also be held liable for the offence.34


i Forum

Generally, product liability cases are heard in the same manner as most other civil cases, that is before a judge in the state courts or the Supreme Court of Singapore.

The court before which the claim will be brought at first instance is determined based on the quantum of the claim, as set out below:

  • a not exceeding S$60,000: magistrates’ court;
  • b between S$60,000 and S$250,000: district court;35 and
  • c above $250,000: High Court.

Any decisions made in these courts may subsequently be appealed to a higher court.36

An exception arises where the claim is below S$10,000 and can, therefore, be heard before the Small Claims Tribunal.37 However, this limit of S$10,000 can be increased to S$20,000 if both the MDS and claimant consent to the increase in writing.38

ii Burden of proof

The burden of proof is generally on the party that initiates an action against a MDS. For instance, to claim that the implied contractual condition that the goods are of satisfactory quality has been breached, the claimant has to show how the goods in question are not of satisfactory quality.39

However, should a claimant seek to rely on section 12B(1) of the CPFTA as a cause of action, the lemon laws provide a presumption that goods that do not conform to the applicable contract at any time within the period of six months did not so conform as at the date of delivery, and it will be for the MDS to prove otherwise.40

iii Defences
General defence: expiry of limitation period

Generally, a claimant may not bring an action founded on a contract or on tort after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.41

However, for a negligence action for damages, different rules apply:

  • a where the damages claimed consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person, an action may be brought within the later of:
  • • three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
  • • three years from the earliest date on which the plaintiff has the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant injury;42 and
  • b for damages other than personal injuries, an action may be brought within the later of:
  • • six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
  • • three years from the earliest date on which the plaintiff or any person in whom the cause of action was vested first had both the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage and a right to bring such an action.43

Meanwhile, for an individual seeking to sue for unfair practices under section 6 of the CPFTA, the action should be within two years of:

  • a the date of the occurrence of the last material event on which the action is based; or
  • b the earliest date on which the consumer had knowledge that the supplier had engaged in the unfair practice to which the action relates.44
General defence: laches

If a claimant delays making a claim, the court may exercise its discretion in dismissing the claim, even though the claim was made within the limitation period. The key factors that the court may consider are the length of the delay and whether the acts done during that time would cause injustice to the defendant.45

Exemption or limitation of liability clauses

An MDS might seek to exclude liability for any contractual breaches or torts committed by including exclusion clauses in its contracts. However, an exclusion clause cannot exclude or restrict the MDS’s liability for any death or personal injury resulting from its negligent actions.46 As for other losses or damage that arise, the MDS would only be able to exclude or restrict its liability with a contractual clause, provided that the clause satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.47 In addition, as against a person dealing as a consumer, a seller cannot rely on an exclusion clause to exclude or restrict the liability that arises from the breach of an undertaking as to the conformity of goods with their descriptions or samples, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose.48

Claims under the CPFTA

A seller may argue that the consumer did not act reasonably in the circumstances, and therefore the actions of the seller cannot be considered as an unfair practice.49 If a consumer unreasonably relies on a product advertising claim that is mere puff, for example, ‘drink X gives you wings’, the seller of the product cannot be considered as having engaged in an unfair practice.

Tort of negligence

A manufacturer may assert that the claimant had either expressly or implicitly accepted the risk of harm associated with the manufacturer’s conduct. However, the manufacturer must prove that the consumer had full knowledge and understanding of the said risk,50 that the consumer had voluntarily assumed that risk51 and that the risk that he or she assumed was the one that occurred.

In addition, a manufacturer may assert the partial defence of contributory negligence in a situation where the losses or harm suffered by the claimant was partly owing to the claimant’s own fault. In such a situation, the court may reduce damages accordingly as the court thinks just and equitable given his or her share of responsibility for the losses or harm suffered.52

iv Personal jurisdiction

In Singapore, personal jurisdiction can be categorised under ‘general civil jurisdiction’ and ‘specific civil jurisdiction’.

General civil jurisdiction

An MDS is subject to the legal authority of the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction if:

  • a the MDS has been served with a writ or other originating process in Singapore or outside Singapore in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court53; or
  • b the MDS has submitted to the High Court’s jurisdiction.54
Specific civil jurisdiction

An MDS that is a corporate entity may be subject to the legal authority of the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction if the MDS was incorporated in Singapore,55 and service was effected on the MDS at its registered address.56

Conversely, if the MDS was not incorporated in Singapore, it needs to first be present within Singapore, and then receive service of the claimant’s originating process, for the MDS to be under the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction.57

Forum non conveniens

The Singapore courts generally uphold choice of law and jurisdiction clauses in contracts and will apply the principle of forum non conveniensto determine if Singapore is the appropriate forum to have the matter heard.

v Expert witnesses

Where there arises a need for an expert’s opinion in a matter, the court may at any time, on its own volition or on the application of a party to a dispute, appoint an independent expert.58 The expert should have scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge based on his or her training, study or experience.59 Such knowledge should be in connection with the questions that he or she has been asked to address60 and be something that the court is likely to derive assistance from.61

If more than one such question arises, two or more such experts may be appointed to inquire and report upon any question of fact or opinion that does not involve a question of law or of construction.62 However, the court may limit the number of expert witnesses who may be called at the trial.63

vi Discovery

There are two key methods of discovery in civil actions initiated before the Singapore courts, namely discovery through requests for the production of documents and discovery through interrogatories.

Request for the production of documents
General discovery

The court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of documents that are or have been in its possession, custody or power.64

This list of documents comprises those that:

  • a are or have been in the other party’s possession, custody or power, and on which the party relies or will rely on; and
  • b could adversely affect the party’s own case, adversely affect the other party’s case or support another party’s case.65

In either case, discovery must be necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.66

After granting such an order, the court retains the discretion on whether to release or modify the undertaking. Most often, it will only release or modify the undertaking in special circumstances and where the release or modification will not occasion injustice to the person giving discovery.67

Specific discovery

To supplement the process of general discovery, specific discovery is available in cases where there are documents that fall within the scope of general discovery but have not been disclosed to the other party. The court may at any time, on the application of either party to a cause or matter, make an order requiring any other party to make an affidavit stating whether any document or any class of document specified or described in the application is, or has at any time been, in its possession, custody or power, and if not then in its possession, custody or power, when it parted with it and what has become of it.

Besides general and specific discovery, a party may apply for discovery before action68 or even discovery against a non-party.69 These are, however, exceptional situations that require a party to show why it is just for the court to grant such an application.70


A party to any cause or matter may apply to the court for an order giving it leave to serve on any other party interrogatories relating to any matter in question between that party and another party in the cause or matter.71 The interrogatories should be necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter, or for saving cost.72

The court may grant an order to administer interrogatories only if the party gives security for the costs of the person against whom the order is made, or on such other terms as the court thinks just.73 If the court is not satisfied that interrogatories are necessary, or are necessary at that stage of the cause or matter, the court may dismiss or adjourn the application, and shall in any case refuse to make such an order.74

vii Apportionment
Regulatory obligations

If the products in question are medical devices and therapeutic products, the existing product registrant on the HSA’s register will be held liable by the HSA for any defective products. Contractual arrangements may be made between the successor company and the previous registrant to apportion risk.

Tortious claims

The following considerations will apply to claims in tort.

Joint liability

A party that authorises, procures or instigates the commission of a wrong may be held jointly liable with the party that actually committed the wrong. Accordingly, if a director of a manufacturing company, for instance, authorises, procures or instigates the company to be negligent in the preparation of a product or to be negligent or fraudulent in the making of representations to a consumer, the director can be held liable for his actions. In TV Media Pte Ltd v. De Cruz Andrea Heidi and Another Appeal,75 one of the defendants was held to have directed, authorised and procured a company’s negligence because of his involvement in all of the company’s significant dealings with third parties, as well as his absolute control of the company.76

Meanwhile, a person who participates in a common design or joint enterprise in the commission of a tort may also be held liable for his or her actions. ‘Common design’ refers to a shared intention that is manifested either through an express77 or an implied agreement.78

Several liability

There may be situations where, for instance, a manufacturer negligently produces a defective good, a seller then makes a fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation to the claimant regarding the same good and both actions lead to the same damage to the claimant. In such cases, both the manufacturer and the seller can be held severally liable for the losses and damage suffered by the claimant through a tortious action.

Vicarious liability

To impose vicarious liability on the MDS because of an individual’s wrong:

  • a there must be an employer–employee relationship between the MDS and the individual;
  • b the individual must have committed a tort; and
  • c the individual’s tort must have been so closely connected with his or her employment that it is fair and just that the MDS should be held vicariously liable for the individual’s tort.79

First, to determine if there is a close connection, the court would take into account factors including, but not limited to, the opportunity that the MDS afforded the individual to abuse his or her power and the extent to which the wrongful act may have furthered the MDS’s aims.80

Secondly, to decide if it is fair and just to impose vicarious liability, the court would take into account all relevant circumstances. This includes policy considerations such as the provision of compensation for innocent victims and the deterrence of future harm against employers to reduce the incidents of accidents and tortious behavior by their employees.

Once vicarious liability is established, the MDS can be held liable for the losses and damage arising from the individual’s tort. One way in which the MDS may not have to bear such liability eventually is if the MDS had previously sought an indemnity from its employee.

viii Mass tort actions

Where numerous identifiable persons have the same interest in a proceeding, the proceeding may be begun, and, unless the court otherwise orders, continued by or against any one or more of them as representing all or as representing all except one or more of them.81 Any judgment or order subsequently given would then be binding on all the persons as representing those whom the claimants sue.82 Such actions help to ensure that all interested parties are represented without being joined as parties, so that the dispute in the suit may be finally determined. 83

ix Damages
Breach of contract

Where an MDS breaches a contract with the claimant, the court will compensate the claimant with damages for the losses that he or she has suffered as a result. In particular, the consumer may, in many situations, elect between expectation damages and reliance damages, though these damages are subject to proof. Expectation damages are damages to put the consumer in the position that he or she would have been in had the contract been performed.84 Where a good is defective, a consumer may claim for the diminution in market value of the good owing to the defect, or the cost of repairing the good. Conversely, reliance damages are based on the expenses that the claimant incurred in reliance on the MDS’s promise to perform its obligations.85

An exception to the freedom to elect what kind of damages to receive is where expectation damages are hard to quantify or are too speculative. In such a situation, the consumer may receive reliance damages instead.86

Claims under the CPFTA

The damages claimable under the CPFTA in respect of an unfair trade practice are subject to a limit of S$30,000.87 Similarly, where the claim is not for money, but for a remedy or relief in respect of the subject matter, the value of the claim should not exceed S$30,000.

Tort of negligence

If a claimant is physically injured by a negligent act of the MDS, he or she may claim damages for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. With regard to pecuniary losses, the court will award damages that would put the claimant in the position as if the injury had not been sustained.88 This may include (present and future) medical expense, loss of future income, future transport costs and future nursing care and nursing home expenses.89 With regard to non-pecuniary losses, the court may award damages for the claimant’s loss of amenities, and for pain and suffering.90


If the court finds the MDS liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, the court may award all losses flowing directly from the claimant’s reliance upon the fraudulent misrepresentation, regardless of whether or not such loss was foreseeable (and including all consequential losses as well).91 Similarly, the MDS would be liable for the same type of damages if it had made a negligent misrepresentation to a claimant which led to the claimant suffering losses. This is unless the claimant had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true.92 If the MDS is found liable for innocent misrepresentation, the court may also order damages in lieu of rescission.93


i Statutory developments

Most recently, on 13 September 2016, the CPFTA was amended to strengthen the protection of consumers from unfair trade practices, which include the making of false claims in product advertising. In addition, SPRING Singapore, which is now appointed as the administering agency for the CPFTA, has been given wide investigative and enforcement powers against errant retailers that engage in unfair trade practices.

SPRING Singapore may also apply to court to obtain a declaration that a supplier is engaging in an unfair trade practice, or an injunction restraining the supplier from engaging in the unfair trade practice, along with ancillary orders to facilitate compliance. For instance, the court may order errant retailers to publicise the fact that injunctions have been ordered against them.94

The amendments came into effect on 9 December 2016.95

ii Case law developments

The High Court held in Honey Secret Pte Ltd v. Atlas Finefood Pte Ltd and others96 that because the good in question (viz, honey) was not properly labelled, it did not comply with Regulation 5 of the Sale of Food Act. Therefore, the honey could not be considered as being of ‘satisfactory quality’ under either Section 14(2) of the SOGA or Sections 4(2) or 4(2A) of the SPGA.

iii Other developments

CASE received a total of 19,102 consumer complaints in 2016. Out of these 19,102 complaints, CASE took action for 1,763 cases. The largest proportion of these complaints related to motorcars (24 per cent).97

There were several product recalls in Singapore in 2016, some of which include the following.

Between March and April 2016, the AVA, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) collaborated in investigating more than 70 cases of food poisoning that resulted from a durian puff bakery’s kitchen. The AVA looked into the suppliers of the ingredients used in making the pastries and found no lapses in food safety at the suppliers’ establishments. Meanwhile, the NEA suspended the bakery’s licence on 22 April 2016, resulting in the bakery having to halt the production, sale and distribution of its pastries.

On 23 August 2016, the AVA announced that a Taiwanese milk tea beverage was to be recalled because the tea contained an unapproved food additive. This was notwithstanding that there was no risk of food safety that was linked to the additive.


1 Lim Ren Jun is a principal at Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance given by Carolyn Ang and Victor Looi Yi En in the preparation of this chapter.

2 Section 3(1) read with Section 2 of the Sale of Food Act (Cap. 283, 2002 Rev. Ed.).

3 Cap. 52A, 2009 Rev. Ed.

4 CPFTA, Section 10.

5 CPFTA, Section 12H.

6 Cap. 53, Rg 1, 2004 Rev. Ed.

7 Cap. 53, No. S 113.

8 Cap. 53, 2013 Rev. Ed.

9 Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act (Cap. 393, 1999 Rev. Ed.) (SOGA).

10 SOGA, Section 14(2A).

11 Section 4(2) of the Supply of Goods Act (Cap. 394, 1999 Rev. Ed.) (SPGA).

12 SOGA, Section 14(2C) and SPGA, Section 4(3).

13 Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v. Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100; [2007] SGCA 37 (Spandeck) at [21].

14 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562.

15 Watson v. Buckley, Osborne, Garrett & Co, Ltd [1940] 1 All ER 174.

16 Spandeck at [21].

17 Spandeck at [115].

18 Spandeck at [21].

19 DBS Bank Ltd v. Carrier Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2008] 3 SLR 261.

20 Taylor v. Ashton (1843) 11 M & W 401 at 415.

21 Cap. 390, 1994 Rev. Ed. (Misrepresentation Act).

22 Misrepresentation Act, Section 2(2).

23 CPFTA, Section 6(1) read with Section 2(1).

24 CPFTA, Sections 12B(1)-(2).

25 CPFTA, Section 6(1).

26 CPFTA, Section 6(2) read with Section 6(6).

27 CPFTA, Section 6(5).

28 CPFTA, Section 8.

29 See First Schedule of the CPSRR.

30 CPSRR, Regulation 5.

31 CPSRR, Regulation 4(3).

32 CGSR, Regulations 3 and 4.

33 CGSR, Regulation 3(3).

34 CPSRA, Section 17.

35 Section 19(4) read with Section 2(1) of the State Courts Act (Cap. 321, 2007 Rev. Ed.).

36 Orders 55D and 57 of the Rules of Court (Cap. 322, R 5, 2014 Rev. Ed.) (ROC).

37 Section 5(3) read with Section 2(1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Act (Cap. 308, 1998 Rev. Ed.) (SCTA).

38 SCTA, Section 5(4).

39 Compact Metal Industries Ltd v. PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd [2006] SGHC 242 at [102].

40 CPFTA, Section 12B(3).

41 Section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap. 163, 1996 Rev. Ed.) (LA).

42 LA, Section 24A(2).

43 LA, Section 24A(3).

44 CPFTA, Section 12.

45 Management Corporation Strata Title No. 473 v. De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd [2002] SGCA 13 at [33]–[34], applying Lindsay Petroleum Co v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221.

46 Section 2(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap. 396, 1994 Rev. Ed.) (UCTA).

47 UCTA, Section 2(1).

48 UCTA, Section 6(2)(a).

49 CPFTA, Section 5(3)(a).

50 Thomas v. Quartermaine (1887) 18 QBD 685.

51 Williams v. Birmingham Battery and Metal Co [1899] 2 QB 338.

52 Section 3(1) of the Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap. 54, 2002 Rev. Ed.).

53 Cap. 322, R 5, 2014 Rev. Ed.

54 Section 16(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 2007 Rev. Ed.) (SCJA).

55 SCJA, Section 17(c), read with Section 4(1) of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev. Ed.).

56 Companies Act, Section 387.

57 SCJA, Section 16(1)(a).

58 ROC, Order 40, Rule 1(1).

59 Section 47(2) of the Evidence Act (Cap. 97, 1997 Rev. Ed.) (EA).

60 ROC, Order 40, Rule 1(4).

61 EA, Section 47(1).

62 ROC, Order 40, Rule 1(1).

63 ROC, Order 40A, Rule 1(1).

64 ROC, Order 24, Rule 1(1).

65 ROC, Order 24, Rules 1(2)(a) and 1(2)(b)(i)–(iii).

66 ROC, Order 24, Rule 7.

67 Crest Homes plc v. Marks [1987] AC 829 at 860.

68 ROC, Order 24, Rule 6(1).

69 ROC, Order 24, Rule 6(2).

70 ROC, Order 24, Rule 6(5).

71 ROC, Order 26, Rule 1(2).

72 ROC, Order 26, Rule 1(1).

73 ROC, Order 26A, Rule 3.

74 ROC, Order 26A, Rule 2.

75 [2004] SGCA 29.

76 Ibid. at [136]–[140].

77 Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and Others and Other Suits (No. 2) [2005] 3 SLR 389, citing Morton-Norwich Products Inc v. Intercen Limited [1978] RPC 501 at 512.

78 Ibid., citing Unilever Plc v. Gillette (UK) Limited [1989] RPC 583 at 609.

79 Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v. Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 540 at [75].

80 Ibid., at [87].

81 ROC, Order 15, Rule 12(1).

82 ROC, Order 15, Rule 12(3).

83 Abdul Rahman v. Ling How Doong and others [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1054; [1994] SGHC 92.

84 Gunac Enterprises (Pte) Ltd v. Utraco Pte Ltd [1995] 1 SLR 11 at 14.

85 Van Der Horst Engineering Pte Ltd v. Rotol Singapore Ltd [2006] 2 SLR 586 at [54].

86 McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1950) 84 CLR 377.

87 CPFTA, Section 6(6).

88 Chartered Electronics Industries Pte Ltd v. Comtech IT Pte Ltd [1998] 3 SLR 502 at [16].

89 Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v. Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin [2012] SGCA 31 at [7].

90 Tan Kok Lam (next friend to Teng Eng) v. Hong Choon Peng [2001] SGCA 27.

91 Wishing Star Ltd v. Jurong Town Corp [2008] 2 SLR 909 at [21], affirming Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158.

92 Misrepresentation Act, Section 2(1).

93 Ibid., Section 2(2).

94 CPFTA, Section 9.

95 Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Act 2016 (Commencement) Notification 2016 (Act 25 of 2016).

96 [2016] SGHC 164.

97 Consumers Association of Singapore, CASE - Consumer Guides | Statistics, retrieved from https://www.case.org.sg/consumer_guides_statistics.aspx (last accessed 21 February 2017).