This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.

In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1997] SGHC 215
Suit 398/1992
Between
Zicom Pte Ltd
… Plaintiff
And
Antara Koh Pte Ltd
… Defendant
grounds of decision
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.
Zicom Pte Ltd v Antara Koh Pte Ltd
[1997] SGHC 215
Suit 398/1992
Judith Prakash J
19 August 1997
1 
Judgment:

2 Cur Adv Vult
3 Introduction
4 
5 
6 The plaintiffs' claim
7 
8 
9 Chitty on Contracts (26th Ed) para 780. In this regard, the plaintiffs rely on Eastman

Chemical International AG v NMT Trading Ltd & Anor [1972] 2 LLR 25 and Circle

Freight International Ltd v Medeast Gulf Exports Ltd [1988] 2 LLR 427
10 
11 
12 
13 The counterclaim
14 
15 
16 
17 (b) the plaintiffs' quotation of 10 October 1990; and
18 (c) the defendants' acceptance on 11 October 1990 of the quotation.
19 
20 
21 (b) that time was of the essence; and
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 15. The issues which I have to decide therefore are as follows:
27 
28 
29 
30 (4) whether the amounts claimed by the defendants as damages are recoverable.
31 The evidence
32 
33 (1) Mr Jimmy Koh
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 24. Other details of the defendants' loss were given by Mr Koh. He claimed:
42 (a) a total of $65,798 for salary and wages incurred during the 70 days delay;
43 (b) $58,360 for the hire of two tug boats;
44 (c) $256,666 being loss of rental fees for the barge for 70 days; and
45 (d) $63,333 being loss of rental fees for the hydraulic hammer for 70 days.
46 The defendants' total claim came up to $446,157.
47 (2) Mr Anthony Ng
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 (3) Mr Foo Siang Tong
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 (4) Danny Chan Poo Meng
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 (5) Lih Mang Nai and Azman bin Yusof
79 
80 
81 Findings
82 (1) The allegation of delayed delivery
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 (2) Was the equipment defective?
97 
98 A. Non contamination-related defects:
99 (a) inadequate cooling and filtration system;
100 (b) problems with response of pile-lifting winch; and
101 (c) problems with sensitivity of control of winches.
102 B. Contamination-related:
103 (a) damage to hydraulic pumps;
104 (b) over-heating; and
105 (c) low hydraulic pressure.
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 83. Mr Foo explained in court how a hydraulic system works. He said:
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 (f) as at March 1991 he knew that the hydraulic system was badly contaminated; and
136 
137 
138 
139 (3) What damages are the defendants entitled to?
140 Hadley v Baxendale
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 Hill v

Ashington Piggeries [1969] 3 All ER 1496 at 1524:
146  of

that kind is not unlikely.'
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 Conclusion
161 
162 
163 JUDITH PRAKASH
164 JUDGE
Judith Prakash J
Richard Buxton with Douglas Leong for the plaintiffs
Andre Maniam with Edwin Lee for the defendants
Back to Top

This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.

Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)