Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 27 May 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGCA 22 |
Citation | [2010] SGCA 22 |
Defendant Counsel | P E Ashokan and Susie Ann Smith (KhattarWong) |
Published date | 21 June 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Anthony Wee (United Legal Alliance LLC) |
Hearing Date | 03 February 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 115 of 2009 |
Date | 27 May 2010 |
Subject Matter | Damages |
The proceedings that led to this appeal arose out of a road accident involving Mr Chai Kang Wei Samuel (“the Appellant”) and Ms Linda Gillian Shaw (“the Respondent”). The Appellant did not contest his liability for the injuries the Respondent suffered as a result of the accident, and interlocutory judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent at an early stage of the proceedings. What remained to be determined was the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the Respondent for the injuries she had sustained. The assistant registrar who presided over the assessment of damages proceedings (“the AR”) made his award on 26 March 2009. Dissatisfied with the AR’s decision, both parties appealed. The High Court judge (“the Judge”), who heard the appeals, allowed both appeals in part. Dissatisfied with the Judge’s decision, the Appellant appealed to this court. We heard the appeal on 3 February 2010 and allowed the appeal in part. We now give the reasons for our decision.
Background facts The accident in question occurred on 6 December 2003 at about 12.44am at the junction of Paterson Road and Orchard Road. The Appellant had lost control of the car which he was driving. It mounted the pavement and collided with a number of people, including the Respondent who was waiting at the pavement to cross the road. The Respondent, an Australian national aged 26 at that time, was then on vacation in Singapore. On 1 July 2004, the Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving (see
As a result of the accident, the Respondent sustained a fracture at the base of her skull which resulted in traumatic brain injury. This, in turn, caused,
The extensiveness of the Respondent’s injuries caused her to be on medical leave from 6 December 2003 to 28 February 2006 – this being a total of 816 days.
Prior to the accident, the Respondent worked as a full-time physiotherapist at Adelaide Community Healthcare Alliance Incorporated (Ashford Hospital) (“ACHA”), and as a self-employed physiotherapist contracted to another health care provider, Sportsmed SA (“Sportsmed”). However, she only started work at ACHA on 16 June 2003, barely six months before the date of the accident, working an average of about 38 hours a week with a wage of AUD$28.01 per hour as at the time of the accident. There was no concrete evidence on the income that the Respondent was receiving from her contract with Sportsmed.
Following the accident, the Respondent decided to make better use of her idle time on medical leave. For a few months towards the end of 2004, she did some casual data entry and analysis work. From January 2005 to February 2006, she studied full-time in the bachelor of health science course at the University of South Australia.
At the beginning of March 2006, following the completion of her degree course and the expiry of her medical leave, the Respondent returned to work at ACHA, but on a part-time basis and performing only light duties. On 2 January 2007, the Respondent returned to full-time work at ACHA. However, she soon found that she was not able to perform her duties as well as she could before the accident, and also that her work was too painful and exhausting to cope with. As a result, on 4 February 2007, the Respondent resigned from her full-time work at ACHA. From 5 February 2007 onwards, the Respondent joined a private outpatient physiotherapy practice, PhysioONE. There, she initially worked on a casual basis for up to five hours a day for three days a week. Over time, she increased her working hours. As at the time of the assessment of damages proceedings, she worked for an average of 34 hours a week with the most recent documentary evidence on her salary indicating that her wage was AUD$38.769 per hour. On 25 June 2007, the Respondent rejoined her previous employer ACHA on a part-time basis. Thus, it would appear that at the time of the assessment of damages proceedings, the Respondent held two part-time jobs. In her tax returns for the year ending 30 June 2007, the Respondent reportedly earned AUD$53,701 (although she stated in her closing submissions before the AR that she was earning AUD$67,449.20).
Proceedings before the AR and the Judge After hearing the parties, the AR made the following awards (in addition to two agreed items and two very small sums which we need not be concerned about) in favour of the Respondent:
Dissatisfied with several components of the damages awarded, both parties appealed. The Appellant, we would mention in particular, sought to have the award for loss of future earnings set aside, as well as to have the quantum awarded for pre-trial loss of earnings, loss of future earning capacity and loss of annual leave reduced. On appeal, the Judge,
In his Notice of Appeal to this court, the Appellant raised the following grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision:
It will be apposite to begin by setting out our views on certain general principles concerning loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity. The Appellant made extensive submissions on the nature and distinction between loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity. The Appellant contended that, in the circumstances of the present case, the Respondent should be awarded loss of earning capacity and not loss of future earnings. He contended that where the evidence of a victim’s loss of future earnings was either sketchy or speculative, which he submitted was the case here, a lump sum award for loss of earning capacity would be the correct award to make, as opposed to an award for loss of future earnings. He also submitted that even if the court should find that there was sufficient evidence
It would be useful if we address the true nature of loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity. The two heads of damages are not strictly alternative to each other, although in an appropriate case, if the plaintiff should fail in his or her claim for loss of future earnings, he or she could nevertheless be awarded damages for loss of earning capacity. The two heads of damages do not necessarily share any symbiotic relationship, as they are distinct and are meant to compensate different losses suffered by an injured plaintiff. A good starting point for an understanding of these two heads of damages is the case of
The trial judge quantified the loss suffered at £1,500 per year and applied a multiplier of seven years, giving a total award of £10,500 for loss of future earnings. On appeal, the English Court of Appeal reduced the trial judge’s award for loss of future earnings to £2,500. Edmund Davies LJ, who delivered the main judgment, held that although the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee Wei Kong v Ng Siok Tong
...(R) 361; [2004] 2 SLR 361 (folld) Cassel v Riverside Health Authority [1992] PIQR Q 168 (refd) Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian [2010] 3 SLR 587 (folld) Chong Hwa Yin v Estate of Loh Hon Fock, deceased [2006] 3 SLR (R) 208; [2006] 3 SLR 208 (refd) Chow Khai Hong v Tham Sek Khow [19......
-
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)
...LEC Recently, this court had the occasion to consider the law on LFE and LEC in the case of Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian [2010] 3 SLR 587 (“Samuel Chai”). There, this court clarified that LFE and LEC compensated different losses and, therefore, were not strictly alternative to ......
-
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen
...v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541 (refd) Chen Qingrui v Phua Geok Leng [2001] SGHC 64 (refd) Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian [2010] 3 SLR 587 (refd) Chan Pui-ki v Leung On [1996] 2 HKLR 401 (refd) Chin Swey Min v Nor Nizar bin Mohamed [2004] SGHC 27 (refd) Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC......
-
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen
...present value approach was a cross check. His award of LFE was not disturbed on appeal (see Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian [2010] 3 SLR 587 at [32]). After Lai Wee Lian and before Hafizul, the courts in Singapore applied the conventional approach simpliciter. The benefits of the ......
-
Tort Law
...Injury Cases (Academy Publishing, 2010). 127 [2016] SGDC 140. 128 [2016] SGDC 250. 129 Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian [2010] 3 SLR 587. 130 See Smith v Manchester Corp [1974] 17 KIR 1, which referred to the weakening of the plaintiff's competitive position in the labour market as......
-
Tort Law
...LEC compensated distinct losses and, therefore, were not strictly alternative to each other (Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian[2010] 3 SLR 587). It highlighted that an award of LFE may be made to an injured party who has yet to enter the employment market provided that there are suf......
-
Tort Law
...SLR(R) 825. Kan Ting Chiu J considered that decision against the Court of Appeal“s judgment in Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian [2010] 3 SLR 587, where the Court of Appeal noted that the component approach risked over-compensation. 23.103 Kan J ultimately was of the view that as lo......