Ang Teck Beng v Tan Zhi Wei Jason

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Leslie Chew
• Judgment Date: 24 December 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGMC 9
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2008
• Published date: 02 February 2009
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chong Thian Choy (Loo & Chong)
• Defendant Counsel: Roger Yek Nai Hui (Lawrence Chua & Partners)
• Citation: [2008] SGMC 9

24 December 2008

District Judge Leslie Chew:

Background

1. This is the usual bread and butter type of cases heard in the Subordinate Courts almost on a daily basis. It is a simple tort action based in negligence arising out of a motor car accident.

2. In this appeal and indeed in the action itself, the factual matrix is not in dispute. There was a motor car collision, resulting in damage to the motor car of the Plaintiff and injuries caused to the Plaintiff. In view of there being no dispute over liability, the Defendant through his insurers sensibly permitted interlocutory judgment to be entered with damages to be assessed. Subsequently, the parties by agreement submitted the dispute over quantum to what is known in the Subordinate Courts as Assessment of Damages Court Dispute Resolution or more commonly, ADCDR. At the ADCDR, the Defendant conceded the Plaintiff’s claim of $19,561.35.

3. There was however one other head of claim which the ADCDR could not resolve by mediation. This was a claim for a sum of $11,682.03 being the sum the Plaintiff claimed as a loss arising out of his redemption of his Hire Purchase loan in respect of his car which was the subject matter of the dispute. In respect of this head of claim or loss, the parties in effect submitted to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar dealing with the ADCDR. This claim was then dealt with at the hearing on 3 Oct 2008. At that hearing, the parties having agreed to the principal claim by the Plaintiff for $19,561.35 the Deputy Registrar awarded the sum to the Plaintiff accordingly. In respect of the further claim by the Plaintiff in connection with the Hire Purchase of the Plaintiff’s motor car, after hearing arguments, the Deputy Registrar awarded the further claim of $11,682.03 to the Plaintiff.

4. The matter came before me on 5 Nov 2008 as a Registrar’s Appeal. Before me the only issue that arose for consideration was the Deputy Registrar’s award to the Plaintiff for the additional head of claim amounting to $11,682.03. After hearing arguments purely on this single head of claim, I dismissed the appeal. The Defendants have since appealed my decision.

Background to the Appeal to the High Court

5. After I dismissed the appeal in RA 188/2008, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on 21 November 2008. In accordance with the present protocol within the Subordinate Courts, this Notice of Appeal was referred to me by the Subordinate Courts Registry for me to ascertain a number of matters (as the judge who heard the matter), including whether or not, leave to appeal was required under s 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322) and as provided for in O 55C r 2 of the Rules of Court. As the amount in dispute was only $11,682.03, clearly leave to appeal to the High Court was required – see Augustine v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR 767. I accordingly indicated that leave to appeal was required.

6. On 21 November 2008 the Defendant’s lawyers duly filed an application for leave to appeal to the High Court in SUM 17122/2008/N. I heard the application for leave to appeal and granted leave to appeal to the High Court.

7. I granted leave to appeal because I was of the view that this was an issue of law which involved a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of a higher tribunal would be to the public advantage – see Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong [1997] 3 SLR 489, at [16]. The issue of law here as will become apparent in my discussion below, involves something mundane but of importance to the motor insurance industry and ultimately to the public who will bear the cost through the insurance premiums.

8. It also has widespread significance because save for very large injury claims almost all actions arising out of motor vehicle collisions whether with or without personal injury is dealt with in the Subordinate Courts. A decision by the senior judiciary would therefore provide certainty. For these reasons, I granted leave to appeal despite the very small amount in dispute, a legitimate factor in the considering whether to grant leave to appeal – see Overseas Union Insurance Ltd [2002] 2 SLR 497.

The Legal Issues

9. Whenever there is damage to a motor car or other vehicle and an action in negligence is instituted, the courts must first determine liability. Upon determining liability and assuming liability is established against the Defendant, the next stage in the process of litigation is for parties to address the issue of loss and the measure of damages to compensate such loss if proved.

10. The stage when the courts consider loss and the appropriate compensation for such loss is typically the Assessment Hearing. In assessing loss and subsequently the measure of damages to be awarded for such loss the court is guided by well –established legal principles on damages. For the purpose of this case (and indeed generally in the context of assessment of damages) it would be useful to restate these principles. The general rule is of course that of fairly compensating the claimant for the loss which he actually sustained by reason of the damage to his motor vehicle. That approach is based on the principle of taking the amount by which the value of the goods damaged has been diminished. This has invariably been taken as the reasonable cost of repair – see McGregor at paragraph 32-003.

11. The relevant principles applicable in the measure of loss to be taken into account in cases of damage to property or goods in tort claims may be divided into two basic categories. The first category is where goods are damaged then the measure of loss or damages is based on the cost of repair – see generally McGregor on Damages, 17^th edition at paragraphs 32-001 to 32-004. It is clearly stated at [32-003] that, ‘In the case of goods other than ships the cost of repair has now become established prima facie, the correct measure of the claimant’s loss.’ The second category relates to goods which have been destroyed. If there has been destruction of the goods then the proper measure is the market value of the goods destroyed, at the time and place of destruction – see generally McGregor at paragraph [32-045]. Although these are principles applied at English law, they have been regularly applied in our courts. In respect of the principles to which I have alluded to, the case of Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd Mohd Kamal bin Abas and Another [1996] 2 SLR 646 is an illustration of the adoption of these principles by the Singapore High Court.

12. I now turn to the present dispute that came before me on appeal. Before me Defendant Counsel argued only a very narrow point. The reason he did so was because he became aware of my decision in Masterfox Connections Pte Ltd v N & I Transportation & Anor. [2008] SGMC 5. In that case I had allowed an award for the loss suffered by the claimant represented by the amount he had to incur in order to ‘redeem’ his loan so that he might scrap the vehicle, that approach being less costly than the cost of repairs. In respect of the financing element, in Masterfox I had stated at paragraph 28 that, “In order for the Plaintiffs to mitigate the loss which the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim against the Defendants, based on...