Tan Ah Tah J:

In this case the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company as a diver to work on their salvage and wreck raising operations.On 12 August 1953 in the course of his work the plaintiff was diving during certain salvage operations off the coast of Singapore at an approximate depth of 120 feet.During the last of a series of dives the plaintiff felt giddy and gave the signal to the linesman on the company's boat to be brought up to the surface.He was thereupon hauled up in one movement in a short space of time instead of by stages over a period of time to allow for decompression in the body.As a result of the events that ensued the plaintiff sustained a form of compressed air illness generally referred to by divers and persons engaged in salvage operations as the "bends." There was a delay in transporting the plaintiff to Loyang for treatment in a decompression chamber which was available there and in consequence of this delay the plaintiff sustained grave personal injuries some of which have been stated by medical witnesses to be of a permanent character.

Among other allegations, it is alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant company failed to provide and maintain a safe and proper system of work, one of the requirements in a safe and proper system of work being the presence of a second or assistant diver to assist the person actually diving in the event of an emergency arising.On this point Mr. McCracken, Port Diving Officer, Singapore gave evidence as an expert witness and was most emphatic in his assertion that the presence of a second or assistant diver was essential during diving operations.The following is a passage from his evidence:

A diver should not dive without a second diver on the surface. I am most positive about this.Even at 50 feet I would still have a stand-by diver.This is a Navy rule.If a diver gets into difficulties he can always signal the surface that he is in difficulties and the second diver can go to his assistance.

It was submitted by Counsel for the defendant company that the Royal Navy was over-cautious in prescribing the rules relating to the necessity of a second diver.On this question it is to be observed that the International Salvage Association (Malaya) Ltd., a commercial concern which has been carrying out salvage operations in local waters since 1952, has always employed a minimum of two divers as a safety measure.Mr. Wong Wing Cheung, who described himself as an executive director of this company, gave the following evidence on this point:

My company has been carrying out salvage operations in local waters since 1952.So far we have never attempted any salvage operations with less than two divers.We always have a minimum of two divers as a safety measure.It is a rule or regulation laid down by my company.My company is a purely civilian company, not attached to the Services.

I accepted the evidence of Mr. Wong Wing Cheung as being the truth and I also accepted the evidence of Mr. McCracken as an expert witness.

Captain Doust, the managing director of the defendant company, stated in examination-in-chief that a second diver was not necessary but admitted in cross-examination that in exceptional cases, e.g. in a case where the person actually diving was suffering from extreme exhaustion, it might be necessary to send a second diver down to assist him.

On this part of the case I am satisfied and find as a fact that the defendant company failed to provide or maintain a safe and proper system of work at the relevant period.If a second diver had been present on the company's boat on 12 August 1953 he could have assisted the plaintiff in various ways.In an attempt to recompress his body the plaintiff had gone back into the water by himself but owing to a feeling that he was going to vomit he was unable to descend further than 30 feet and had to come to the surface again. A second diver, if he had been there, could have waited for a favourable opportunity to assist t