Chia Bak Eng and Another v Punggol Bus Service Company

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date21 May 1966
Date21 May 1966
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No Y15 of 1966
CourtFederal Court (Singapore)
Chia Bak Eng and another
Plaintiff
and
Punggol Bus Service Co
Defendant

[1966] SGFC 7

Tan Ah Tah FJ

,

F A Chua J

and

J W D Ambrose J

Civil Appeal No Y15 of 1966

Federal Court

Civil Procedure–Appeals–Findings of fact–Whether judge erred in rejecting evidence of witness–Whether retrial should be ordered

In deciding an action arising out of an accident between a cyclist and a bus, the judge at first instance rejected the evidence of the only witness called by the appellants. The appellants appealed arguing that the trial judge was wrong to do so.

Held, allowing the appeal:

While the judge had erred in rejecting the evidence of the witness, the credibility of the witness had to be determined, and an appellate court was not in a good position to do so. A retrial was therefore ordered: at [21].

Montgomery & Co Ltd v Wallace-James [1904] AC 73 (folld)

Thomas v Thomas [1947] AC 484 (folld)

Dennis Murphy (Murphy & Dunbar) for the appellants

Goh Heng Leong (Allen & Gledhill) for the respondent.

F A Chua J

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs in an action in which the appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents, the defendants. The action arose out of an accident between a cyclist Tan Peng Seak and a bus driven by a servant of the defendants in which Tan Peng Seak was killed.

2 The main question for determination in this appeal is whether the learned trial judge erred in rejecting the evidence of Lim Ah Huat (PW3), the only witness called by the plaintiffs, who claimed to be present when the accident happened.

3 The evidence of Lim Ah Huat was shortly this. He was riding his motorcycle at a distance of four feet from the left hand edge of the road when he saw a cyclist riding a bicycle about three feet from the edge of the road in the same direction as himself about one hundred feet in front of him. He saw a motor bus overtaking him at a distance of three feet to his right. After overtaking him the bus pulled in to its near side and the bus obstructed his view of the cyclist. He then heard the screeching of brakes when the bus was thirty feet ahead of him and the bus came to a stop. He overtook the bus and he saw in front of the bus the cyclist who had been knocked down and a bicycle lying on its near side four feet in front of the bus and six inches from the edge of the road. He did not see the impact. He found that the cyclist was Tan Peng Seak.

4...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 7 April 2010
    ...230; [1991] SLR 486 (refd) Chee Siok Chin v AG [2006] 4 SLR (R) 541; [2006] 4 SLR 541 (refd) Chia Bak Eng v Punggol Bus Service Co [1965-1967] SLR (R) 270; [1965-1968] SLR 168 (refd) Cohen v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 916 (refd) Collins Stewart v The Financial Times Ltd [2005] EMLR 5 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT