AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOE
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | George Wei J |
Judgment Date | 20 October 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 272 |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 272 |
Subject Matter | Damages,measure of damages,lost years claim,assessment,provisional damages,personal injuries cases |
Docket Number | Suit No 1054 of 2012 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 377 and 383 of 2014) |
Date | 20 October 2015 |
Defendant Counsel | Teo Weng Kie and Shahira Anuar (Tan Kok Quan Partnership) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Michael Han Hean Juan (Hoh Law Corporation) |
Published date | 28 October 2015 |
Hearing Date | 13 April 2015,07 September 2015,27 February 2015 |
On 6 July 2011, a 9-year old boy, the plaintiff in this case (hereinafter, “the Plaintiff”), was knocked down by a vehicle driven by the defendant (hereinafter, “the Defendant”) along Jurong East Avenue 1. He sustained severe, permanent injuries from the accident. He is now a quadriplegic who requires constant care. His life expectancy has been greatly reduced; doctors estimate that he would live only to the age of 38.
On 13 December 2012, the Plaintiff (via his litigation representative) commenced a suit against the Defendant. By consent, interlocutory judgment was entered against the Defendant on 31 July 2013. It ordered that judgment “be entered in this action in favour of the Plaintiff for 100% against the Defendant with damages and interest and costs to be reserved to the Registrar”.
The matter went before the learned assistant registrar (“the AR”) for an assessment of damages. The AR delivered her judgment on 21 November 2014, awarding the Plaintiff a global sum of $1,252,825.86 with interest, and making an award for provisional damages (see [2014] SGHCR 21, hereinafter referred to as “the AR’s Judgment”). Dissatisfied with the AR’s decision, the parties both filed appeals and the matter came before me.
The AR’s order and the parties’ appealsI now summarise the AR’s order, as well as the parties’ appeals.
AR’s order For special damages, the AR awarded the Plaintiff the following:
For general damages, the AR awarded the Plaintiff the following:
For interest, the AR ordered that interest is to be applied at half of 5.33% on special damages from the date of service of writ to the date of judgment, and interest at 5.33% on general damages for pain and suffering from the date of service of writ to the date of judgment.
The AR also ordered that the Plaintiff may apply for future damages to be assessed if he requires a permanent tracheostomy as a result of contracting pneumonia within three years of her order (“Provisional Damages Order”).
Costs of the assessment of damages hearing was fixed at $85,000, plus Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) and disbursements to be agreed or taxed.
Plaintiff’s appealIn Registrar’s Appeal No 377 of 2014, the Plaintiff appeals against part of the AR’s award.
In relation to special damages, the Plaintiff appeals against the AR’s award of S$43,882.80 for the mother’s pre-trial loss of earnings and employer’s CPF contribution.
In relation to general damages, the Plaintiff appeals against the following awards:
The Plaintiff also appeals against the AR’s award of interest. However, no submissions were made on this before me. I therefore find no basis to vary the AR’s award of interest.
Defendant’s appeal In Registrar’s Appeal No 383 of 2014, the Defendant appeals against the following awards and orders:
In this judgment, I propose to deal with the issues raised on appeal in the following order:
Dealing with the issues in this sequence generally enables me to dispose of the issues which are relatively less complex and more factual in nature, before discussing the heads of appeal that involve more complex questions of law.
For the sake of clarity, I note that there is
As a preliminary, it is important to clarify the role of a High Court judge who hears an appeal from an assistant registrar on assessment of damages under O 56 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”).
The authorities establish that the judge in chambers hears the matter not as an appeal in the true sense of the word, but deals with the Registrar’s Appeal on assessment of damages as if the matter came before him for the first time:
Indeed, the Court of Appeal helpfully explained in
There are practical implications to the fact that the judge in chambers exercises a
Whilst the judge can exercise his discretion afresh, unfettered by the assistant registrar’s decision, it must be borne in mind that the assistant registrar still has the advantage of having heard the oral evidence of the witnesses first hand. As the Court of Appeal noted in
It is with the above principles in mind, that I consider the present appeals before me.
Mother’s pre-trial loss of earnings The AR awarded the Plaintiff damages of $43,882.80 for his mother’s pre-trial loss of earnings. I briefly set out her reasoning, which can be found at [102]–[103] of the AR’s Judgment:
The Plaintiff appeals against the multiplier of 29 months and three days used by the AR. He submits that “the multiplier should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BAZ v BBA and others and other matters
...v Nederkoorn Robin Hoddle [2000] 3 SLR(R) 918 (“A S Nordlandsbanken”), AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOE [2016] 1 SLR 217 (“AOD v AOE”) and Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte Ltd and others [2010] 2 SLR 625 (“John Ting”). The Non-Managemen......
-
Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd
...employed for 26 years from 2019 to 2044. He submits that the appropriate multiplier is 15 years by analogy to the High Court decisions of AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOE [2016] 1 SLR 217 (“AOD”) and Siew Pick Chiang v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd an......
-
Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (by his litigation representative Pang Choy Chun) v Yeo Chye Huat and another appeal
...approaches include the following: approximately halving the expected period of future loss (as was observed by the Singapore High Court in AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOE [2016] 1 SLR 217 (“AOD”) at [38]); and applying a principle that “that the multiplier for fut......
-
Lua Bee Kiang (administrator of the estate of Chew Kong Seng, deceased) v Yeo Chee Siong
...not challenge this part of the AR’s decision: see the High Court decision of AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOE [2016] 1 SLR 217 at [12]–[13] per George Wei J. Evidently, none of these precedents is on all fours with the present case. As with any comparison with prev......
-
Introduction of actuarial tables for determining the multiplier in personal injury and death claims in Singapore: Is this a prelude to larger claims against doctors and healthcare providers?
...Table 1-7, Multipliers for Males, on page 20 of the Actuarial Tables book). AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOE [2016] 1 SLR 217 The Plaintiff was 9 years old when he was rendered a quadriplegic after a car accident. At the time of assessment of damages, the Plaintiff......