The Singapore Law Gazette

Non-Delegable Duties: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

This article discusses the ambit of a non-delegable duty in the context of the responsibilities of schools for the safety of students under their care. The unfortunate accident of a student on a compulsory school trip to the Maldives brings to the forefront the debate on the measures schools in Singapore ought to take when conducting or organising a panoply of activities.

Introduction

Many of us will be familiar with the phrase “with great power comes great responsibility”, spoken to Spider-Man by his uncle Ben. This adage applies similarly in the real world we live in, where we demand schools, who have significant control over the students in their custody, to be responsible for many aspects of education.

We pile pressure on teachers to ensure that students perform superlatively in exams. We also expect schools to ensure that students participate actively in a wide range of co-curricular activities (CCAs) so that they appear to be all-rounders and can secure prestigious scholarships. In addition, the Direct School Admission (DSA) policy allows Primary 6 students to secure a secondary school spot before taking the PSLE based on specific talents and non-academic abilities.

At our tertiary institutions, aptitude-based admissions take into account representation of Singapore in arts or sports competitions and leadership positions outside of school. So, if your grades are not that good, you better be a good swimmer or have done volunteer work in an overseas expedition.

The Law on Non-Delegable Duty in Singapore

Increasingly, when an independent contractor commits a tort, the claimant can attempt to exact compensation from a third-party defendant on the basis of vicarious liability by arguing that the tortfeasor was in a relationship akin to employment, or on the basis of a personal non-delegable duty owed to the tortfeasor.

A non-delegable duty is the chimera of the law of negligence created out of a need to fill the lacuna in vicarious liability to render third parties liable for the carelessness of others, and imposing on the defendant a duty that extended beyond just being careful, to procuring and ensuring the careful performance of work delegated to others. It is frequently invoked to prevent an employer from circumventing the principle of vicarious liability by outsourcing functions to independent contractors. Its tortured conception was well-chronicled by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association,¹[2013] UKSC 66 (‘Woodland’). and the test articulated by Lord Sumption JSC was applied in a unanimous judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd.²[2016] 4 SLR 521 (‘Tiong Aik’). Essentially the principle of non-delegable duty operates hand-in-hand with vicarious liability, albeit on different theoretical foundations, to fasten liability on an employer for the tortious acts of the employees or independent contractors. The expanding scope of vicarious liability to meet the changes in the structure of work organisations of modern industry has seen a concerted movement away from the traditional justifications of effective compensation and deterrence towards the enterprise risk argument as the primary policy consideration in numerous decisions. In September 2017, in a rare five-member full bench decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni,³[2017] SGCA 58 (‘Ng Huat Seng’). the unanimous judgment delivered by Sundaresh Menon CJ considered the recent English judicial pronouncements on the law of vicarious liability and non-delegable duties, and affirmed the application of Woodland in Singapore law.

The Court of Appeal in Ng Huat Seng observed that a cardinal rule in the tort of negligence was that a person would generally be held liable only for his own carelessness, and not for the carelessness of others; however, there were two “derogations” from the fault-based principle: vicarious liability and non-delegable duty. Menon CJ noted that the doctrine of non-delegable duties imposed on a defendant a duty that “extend[ed] beyond being careful, to procuring the careful performance of work delegated to others”.⁴Ng Huat Seng [2017] SGCA 58 at [80] (citing Woodland at [5]). In contrast to vicarious liability which imposes secondary liability on a party based on its relationship with the tortfeasor, a party subject to a non-delegable duty would be held personally liable in tort even if he had non-negligently delegated the performance of certain tasks to an independent contractor who had then been negligent in performing those tasks. The court affirmed its earlier decision in Tiong Aik which applied a two-stage test for determining whether a non-delegable duty would arise on a given set of facts, i.e., the claimant would have to satisfy the threshold requirement in the first stage that: (a) either his case fell within one of the established or recognised categories of non-delegable duties; or (b) his case possessed all of the five defining features outlined by Lord Sumption JSC in Woodland. Then at the second stage, the court would additionally take into account the fairness and reasonableness of imposing a non-delegable duty of care on the defendant in the particular circumstances of the case, as well as the relevant policy considerations in the local context of Singapore. Menon CJ emphasised that non-delegable duties should remain “exceptional” because “in many instances, it would be unrealistic or even impossible for the duty-bearer to fulfil the non-delegable duty in question, and this could lead to very artificial outcomes.”⁵Ng Huat Seng [2017] SGCA 58 at [85].

The court also observed that in the established categories of non-delegable duties, such as hospitals with regard to patients under their care and schools in respect of their pupils’ physical safety, “one common thread which might be said to run through these categories is a relationship between the defendant and the claimant under which the claimant has a ‘special dependence’ on or ‘particular vulnerability’ in relation to the defendant” and the duty arises by virtue of the defendant “undertaking or assuming some form of responsibility to the claimant”.⁶Ng Huat Seng [2017] SGCA 58 at [100].

Finally, the issue of breach of a non-delegable duty remains unclear. Can a defendant ever discharge a non-delegable duty even when harm ensues? The court in Ng Huat Seng, in relation to the doctrine of ultra-hazardous activities, commented that “the basis for liability remains negligence” and if the principal takes reasonable care to ensure that the party performing the activity does so in a non-negligent manner and the latter does indeed perform the activity non-negligently but some harm nonetheless ensues, there will be no liability on the basis of negligence on the part of the party performing the activity, nor will there be liability for breach of a non-delegable duty on the principal’s part.⁷Ng Huat Seng [2017] SGCA 58 at [107]. However, generally in a non-delegable duty context, the defendant is said to have assumed responsibility for the exercise of due care by anyone to whom he may delegate its performance. In Woodland, Lord Sumption JSC cautioned that the principle is not one of an “open-ended liability” and courts should be sensitive about imposing unreasonable financial burdens on those providing critical public services and that a non-delegable duty should be imputed to schools only so far as it would be fair, just and reasonable to do so.⁸Woodland [2013] UKSC 66 at [25].

What Should Schools Be Doing?

What many of us may be unaware of are the inherent risks that accompany a growing number of these activities that schools conduct, and the immense responsibility that the law imposes on schools that conduct them, whether within school hours and on school premises, or outside.

A natural dilemma then arises: Is it fair to require schools and teachers to be safety auditors? Does a teacher need to supervise every single CCA activity and outdoor learning session in addition to giving remedial academic classes? 

The following allegations are presently before the court and have not been adjudicated. In July this year, the family of a 15-year-old girl who died while on a compulsory school trip to the Maldives in 2024 filed a negligence claim against her school, St Joseph’s Institution International (SJII), in the High Court. In an unfortunate accident, the student was fatally struck by the propeller of a reversing boat when she was in the waters. The trip formed part of SJII’s outdoor education programme, which is compulsory for Grade 9 students and a requirement for promotion to the next academic year. It was reported that the statement of claim contends that because the young student was a child placed in the school’s custody on a mandated school trip, SJII owed her a non-delegable duty of care that could not be outsourced to a third party.⁹Ann Neo and Gabrielle Chan, ‘Family of SJI International student who died on Maldives trip files negligence claim against school’, The Straits Times )20 July 2026) <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/family-of-sji-international-student-who-died-on-maldives-trip-files-negligence-claim-against-school>.

There is a big difference between a “non-delegable duty” and a normal duty of care in negligence. 

A non-delegable duty imposes on the organisation a duty that extends beyond just being careful itself, to ensuring the careful performance of work delegated to others. It ensures that organisations are legally responsible for the carelessness of third parties who are not their employees, when especially vulnerable individuals under their care are exposed to the risk of harm, such as young children in schools and patients in hospitals. A normal duty of care only requires one to take reasonable precautions,¹⁰For the relevant principles on proximity and the duty of care in negligence, see Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100; Anwar Patrick Adrian and anor v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and anor [2014] 3 SLR 761; NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another [2018] 2 SLR 588; Daisho Development Singapore Pte Ltd v Architects 61 Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 16; The Subsidiary Management Corporation No. 01 – Strata Title Plan No. 4355 v Janaed and another and another appeal [2022] SGHC(A) 26. See also Joshua Phang and David Tan, Economic Torts in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2026) 358-395; David Tan and Goh Yihan, ‘The Promise of Universality: The Spandeck Formulation Half A Decade On’ (2013) 25 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 510. but when a function is properly outsourced, the legal responsibility shifts to the independent service provider.

In this instance, as alleged in the statement of claim, the Maldives Whale Shark Research Programme, an external vendor, organised the snorkelling part of the school trip when the fatal accident happened. In a normal negligence situation, the vendor is likely to be legally responsible. But in a non-delegable duty scenario, the school must ensure that its vendors and independent contractors carefully and competently do their work.

In Woodland, a 10-year-old student from a junior school in Essex suffered severe hypoxic brain injuries in 2000 at a school-organised swimming lesson supervised by a swimming instructor and a lifeguard. The swimming lessons were part of the school’s national PE curriculum. While they did not occur on school premises, they occurred during school hours in a place where the school chose to carry out this part of its functions. Thirteen years later, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concluded that the school owed a non-delegable duty.¹¹Woodland [2013] UKSC 66. However, the court also cautioned that the principle is not one of an open-ended liability.

When one accepts that an educational authority or school owes a non-delegable duty for the students’ physical safety, the age of the student (and correspondingly the degree of control and vulnerability) makes a difference. In England and Australia, there have been a number of decisions by the courts there regarding the extent of such duties when an institution has undertaken the responsibility to care for a specific group of individuals under its control such as schools for pupils, hospitals for patients and even prisons for prisoners.

As lawyers, there are a number of salient points to consider when giving advice.

In Singapore, childcare and pre-school service providers as well as kindergartens and schools need to be aware of their responsibilities when dealing with the young children and teenagers under their charge. The younger the child, the higher is the standard of care under a non-delegable duty. Schools generally need to ensure that learning trips, such as a local excursion to the zoo or an overseas programme, are safely conducted. Physical education classes and CCAs under the purview of the school are likely to also fall within the scope of this duty.

However, one may not hold a university to the same higher standard of care that we would readily expect for children in kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools as the nature of vulnerability on the part of more mature students is different.

There are untested areas the courts have not had the opportunity to consider (such as mental harm and cyber bullying), as cases to date have involved only physical injuries. To what extent should schools be responsible for psychiatric illnesses such as depression or anxiety that may accrue over a prolonged period due to the carelessness of guidance counsellors who fail to detect early symptoms? Are schools liable for online harassment of a student by fellow students even under a normal duty of care for not properly inculcating a culture of respect?

If schools cannot delegate the responsibility for ensuring the safety of young students under their care, educators might decide they must bolster school capacities to undertake those duties.

It may mean that schools may have to assign their teachers to supervise competently appointed swimming instructors, rugby coaches and gymnastic teachers who might be independent contractors possessing the requisite special skills for the specific functions. In practice, this is going to be challenging. Would a literature teacher who is rostered to supervise rugby training at a secondary school know better than the sport instructor as to the relevant safety protocols? On the one hand, we want to inculcate values of risk-taking and resilience in our young through experiential outdoor learning and CCAs. On the other, we also expect schools to implement a heightened set of safeguards. At the end of the day, when faced with real litigation possibilities, schools may just scale back on such valuable activities.

Based on the current law, it is unclear where the line should be drawn. However, one may also want to consider extra-legal solutions. Perhaps parents should also play a part in properly educating their children on the importance of taking care for their own safety and abiding by a safe sport code of conduct. Perhaps a collaborative partnership in which parent volunteers can accompany students on school trips or chaperone certain CCAs outside school premises could be a start to fostering a safer learning environment for our young. With great power does come great responsibility, but the responsibility can be meaningfully shared.

This article is concerned with the development and scope of the doctrine of non-delegable duties in Singapore law. References to the ongoing litigation arising from the Maldives school trip incident are based on matters reported in the public domain and are included solely for illustrative and educational purposes. The proceedings remain before the Court and no findings of fact or liability have been made. Accordingly, nothing in this article should be understood as expressing any view on the merits of the claims, defences or issues that fall to be determined in those proceedings.