To All Members, Associates and Partners of the Singapore Shooting Association (SSA),
We are pleased to announce the final judgment on the first of four lawsuits Singapore Rifle Association (SRA) launched against SSA and its elected Officers.
In January 2017, SRA sued SSA for more than $450,000 in losses it alleged that SRA suffered from a flooding in the NSC basement. The High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed SRA’s claim. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s grounds of decision (“Judgment”) is attached.
Paragraphs 68 & 69 summarize the findings laid out in the 44-page Judgment by the Court of Appeal.
- This was a case where the outcome seemed to have left something to be desired. We were well aware the dismissing SRA’s appeal would leave it without recourse (at least for now) in respect of the alleged losses that it suffered as a result of the first flood. As counsel submitted, SRA was in this sense. An innocent victim of the circumstances. However, so was SSA, whose actions were neither in breach of any duty that it owed to SRA. SRA was left without a remedy because of the way the case proceeded.
- We would advise that SRA itself made the decision to pursue its claims for the losses arising from the two floods against SSA in particular, out of the various entities involved. As things transpired, the evidence adduced at the trial was insufficient to sustain the allegations which SRA made against SSA where the 1st flood was concerned. There are rules and procedures which can assist a potential plaintiff in identifying the potential defendant(s) whom it may sue and formulating the cause(s) of action it may it may pursue. These include for instance, pre-action discovery and interrogatories. If, despite the availability of these rules and procedures, a plaintiff chooses to sue only a particular defendant but the available evidence is insufficient to make out the plaintiff’s case against the defendant, the plaintiff must accept the consequences of its decision. The present case was one such instance where, for reasons best known to itself, SRA chose not to pursue other potential defendant(s). (The Judgement in its entirety is in the SSA website)