Choong Peng Kong v Koh Hong Son

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 23 June 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 136
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 136
• Subject Matter: Whether award should be made for loss of future earnings,Damages,Measure of damages,Personal injuries cases
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lalita Chelliah (Rayney Wong & Eric Ng)
• Published date: 19 November 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Robert Leslie Gregory (William Chai & Rama),M Ramasamy (William Chai & Rama)
• Docket Number: Suit No 142 of 2002
• Date: 23 June 2003

1 The defendant, who was the driver of a cement-mixer, agreed that he was 95% responsible for a traffic collision with the plaintiff (“the claimant”) who was riding a motor cycle. Interlocutory judgment was entered. Damages were assessed by the Assistant Registrar and she assessed, among other items, that the pre-trial loss, inclusive of CPF, was $39,325.53, the loss of future earnings inclusive of CPF at 16% was $339.081.60, and the sum of $20,000 as loss of earning capacity. The details of the assessment of Special and General Damages were set out by the Assistant Registrar in an Annexure which is annexed to this judgment.

2 Both parties were dissatisfied with the decisions and appealed to the High Court. The claimant contended that his pre-trial loss totalled $47,853.66. In relation to the injury to his right hand, counsel for the claimant submitted that there should be an award of $70,000.00 relying on Samsudin bin Amir v Mui Siew Kong 1990 Mallal’s Dist para 520 and Mukhitar Singh v Balwint Daljit Singh [1993] 3SLR 741. The biggest item of the claimant’s appeal was of course for the loss of future earnings. Based on his loss of promotions, which he on the evidence would have unquestionably achieved, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the loss of future earnings should be $655,877.82. The claimant relied on the following matters. First, by reason of the injuries to his right hand, he would not get the promotions and increments. Secondly, he had no hope of any increment for long service in the future. Thirdly, he would not get any overtime for the rest of his life.

3 Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, submitted that the pre-trial loss should only be $4,200.00. Counsel strongly urged the court not to award anything for loss of future earnings. It was pointed out that the claimant was on medical leave from March 2000 to September 2000. During his medical leave he still received his pay. From October 2000 he once again received overtime pay. Counsel for the defendant submitted that in July 2000 the claimant had an increment from $2,413.00 to $2,534.00. In the result, it was emphasised that despite his injury to his right hand, he is still employed by the same firm, earning a higher salary. His claim for overtime is unpredictable; it depends on the performance of his employer.

4 At the conclusion of both appeals, I dismissed both of them and ordered the claimant to pay costs of $2,500 of the appeals to the defendant, seeing that the claimant had lost on his substantial claim for future loss of earnings.

5 On 25 March 2003 the defendant filed Notice of Appeal against part of my decision. He appeals against three aspects of my decision, namely the pre-trial loss of earnings, the loss of future earnings and the loss of earning capacity.

6 I dismissed the appeals because there was ample evidence before the Assistant Registrar to justify the findings and the assessments she made. I summarise the evidence briefly. The claimant, then 35 year old, was hospitalised on 25 February 2000 after the traffic accident. He, a right hander, sustained crushed injury to his right hand involving the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th metacarpal bone with muscles and tendon injury. By February 2002 the fractures had united but there remained stiffness and restriction of movements of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th fingers. There is hypoasthesia of the right hand and reduced power in his hand grip.

7 According to Dr Chew Peng Cher, the crushed injury of the right hand involving the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd metacarpal bone had now united with degenerative and restriction of movements. This is permanent. The weakness of the right hand grip was also noted. It is again permanent and will reduce the efficiency work-rate of his right hand. The total loss of his right hand is 45%.

8 At the time of the accident, the claimant was earning, including overtime, the total of $36,734.75 for the year or about $3,061.23 per month. In year 2000 he received the total salary of $37,558.34. As a result of the accident, he was unable to work for a few months. He was paid during his medical leave.

9 As a Senior Associate Engineer, his duties included maintaining of equipment, equipment conversion package to package, modifying and adapting parts of use in the equipment, replacing parts so that the equipment could be used to produce different products, training of staff in maintaining of equipment including training of staff for the purposes of adapting the equipment to produce different products. Prior to the injuries, he used to work overtime on...