Case Comment: Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd

• Main Author: GOH, Yihan
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2009
• Subjects: Asian Studies; Commercial Law; Contracts
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1388; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3340/viewcontent/gyh_RobertsonQuay_2009.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

In recent times, the venerable principles relating to remoteness of damage in contract have undergone a period of sustained re-evaluation. Key amongst this exercise is the House of Lords’ decision in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc—referred to as ‘The Achilleas’, which represents a fundamental shift in the understanding of remoteness principles. Caught in the winds of The Achilleas is the considered judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd.In direct contrast with some of the speeches in The Achilleas, the judgment delivered by Andrew Phang JA in Robertson Quay stands as a beacon of stability anchored to the orthodox understanding of remoteness principles. Yet, apparent as its adherence to tradition might seem, Robertson Quay possibly represents a more patient revival of the hitherto discredited implied promise theory of remoteness found in British Columbia Saw Mill Co v Nettleship, arguably the precursor to the assumption of responsibility analysis in The Achilleas. Whilst Robertson Quay was decided prior to The Achilleas, the judicial reasoning in the former offers a valuable point of comparison with the latter, which undoubtedly (and understandably) has received far wider reception.