Ban Pet Hock v Ong Ah Ho
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1966 |
| Date | 04 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | Suit No 2150 of 1964 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1966] SGHC 26
Choor Singh J
Suit No 2150 of 1964
High Court
Damages–Assessment–Whether interest on damages for personal injuries should be awarded–Section 8 Civil Law Ordinance (Cap 24, 1955 Rev Ed)–Damages–Compensation and damages–Whether interest on damages for personal injuries should be awarded–Section 8 Civil Law Ordinance (Cap 24, 1955 Rev Ed)–Damages–Inadequate damages–Whether interest on damages for personal injuries should be awarded–Section 8 Civil Law Ordinance (Cap 24, 1955 Rev Ed)–Damages–Measure of damages–Personal injuries cases–Whether interest on damages for personal injuries should be awarded–Section 8 Civil Law Ordinance (Cap 24, 1955 Rev Ed)–Damages–Quantum–Whether interest on damages for personal injuries should be awarded–Section 8 Civil Law Ordinance (Cap 24, 1955 Rev Ed)
The plaintiff was knocked down by a lorry driven by the defendant, and was awarded general and special damages for personal injuries suffered by him. Relying on s 8 of the Civil Law Ordinance (Cap 24, 1955 Rev Ed), the plaintiff applied for interest on the damages awarded from the date of the accident until the date of the judgment on the ground that he had been kept waiting for his money for a long time.
Held, dismissing the application:
In a running-down case, unless and until the question of liability and the quantum of damages are settled by the court, there can be no question of withholding the plaintiff's money. And if there is a delay of 12 to 18 months or more between the commencement and the determination of the action, there is no reason why the defendant should be penalised for a delay for which it is not responsible. Accordingly, on principle, torts affecting the person do not require an award of interest on damages and there should be no award of interest under s 8 of the Civil Law Ordinance on damages awarded in running-down cases: at [8] to [12].
Kemp v Tolland [1956] 2 Lloyd's Rep 681 (refd)
Sivarajan v Swee Lam Estates (M) Ltd [1966] 1 MLJ xvii (not folld)
Civil Law (Amendment) Ordinance1940 (No 30 of 1940)
Civil Law Ordinance (Cap 24,1955Rev Ed)s 8 (consd)
Civil Law Ordinance 1956 (No 5 of 1956) (Malaya)s 11
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (c 41) (UK)s 3
Rules of the Supreme Court 1957, TheO 41r 11
H E Cashin (Murphy & Dunbar) for the plaintiff
Patrick Ong (Abisheganaden & Co) for the defendant.
1 In this action, the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries suffered by him on 2 June 1963 when he was knocked down on Paya Lebar Road, Singapore by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee Soon Beng v Wee Tiam Sing
... ... I held that on principle no interest should be awarded on damages in running-down cases ... Section 9 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 30) empowers the court to award interest on damages. The power is discretionary.In Ban Pet Hock v Ong Ah Ho [1966] 2 MLJ 253 Choor Singh J held that on principle interest should not be allowed when damages are awarded in running-down cases. I respectfully agree with Choor Singh J.The power of the court to award interest in personal injury cases is contained in s 9 of the Civil Law Act ... ...
-
Lim Cheng Wah v Ng Yaw Kim
... ... Mr Jayabalan, on the other hand, contended that though s 9 of the Act gave the court a discretion to award interest, that discretion should not be exercised. He relied on Ban Pet Hock v Ong Ah Ho [1966] 2 MLJ 253 in which Choor Singh J refused to allow any interest on the amount awarded for damages for personal injuries, and also on Lai Chi Kay & Ors v Lee Kuo Shin [1980-1981] SLR 513 in which FA Chua J expressed his agreement with Choor Singh J and disallowed ... ...
-
Chan Heng Wah and Another v Peh Thiam Choh and Another
...evidence to substantiate such deductions: at [38]. Adsett v West [1983] QB 826; [1983] 2 All ER 985 (folld) Ban Pet Hock v Ong Ah Ho [1965-1967] SLR (R) 457; [1965-1968] SLR 516 (folld) Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27 (refd) Harris v Empress Motors Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 212; [1983] 3 All ER 561 (f......
-
Lai Chi Kay and Others v Lee Kuo Shin
... ... But since 1 January 1970 it has become compulsory by statute. In Singapore, the power of the court to award interest on debts and damages is to be found in s 9 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 30). It is a discretionary power. The plaintiff in the case of Ban Pet Hock v Ong Ah Ho [1966] 2 MLJ 253 applied for interest on the sum awarded for personal injuries and Choor Singh J held that on principle interest should not be allowed when damages are awarded in running-down cases. I respectfully agree with that decision. I, therefore, do not allow interest in ... ...