Abstract:
The limits of the law on dual vicarious liability were recently tested in the decisions of Munshi Mohammad Faiz v Interpro Construction Pte Ltd [2021] 4 SLR 1371 and Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad [2021] 1 SLR 1288, both before the General and Appellate divisions of the High Court. Against the backdrop of these decisions, this case note argues that the approach laid down by the High Court may go some ways in resolving the tension and assist in settling the perennial question of the role of control in dual vicarious liability. In particular, it is argued that control should be the main factor in guiding the court’s determination, and a framework is proposed to provide a clearer and more practical approach. This case note also considers whether the pro hac vice principle, which allows a permanent employer to shift liability entirely to the temporary employer if the former has temporarily transferred the services of one of his general servants to another party for a particular occasion, remains relevant in light of this development.