Chua Kee Lam (next friend to Chua Peck Seng) v Moksha and Another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 06 May 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGHC 110 |
Citation | [2009] SGHC 110 |
Subject Matter | Accident victim not fit to testify,No witnesses called,Admissions,Admissibility of evidence,No case to answer,Head injuries from road traffic accident,Documentary evidence,Tort,Contributory negligence,Police report, photographs and sketch plan of accident scene,Evidence,Negligence,Whether police report, photographs and sketch plan might form evidence of accident,Hearsay,Whether makers of police documents had to testify,Whether driver had taken sufficient precautionary measures,Breach of duty,Public or official documents |
Defendant Counsel | M P Rai (Cooma & Rai) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Namasivayam Srinivasan and K Subramanian (Hoh Law Corporation) |
Date | 06 May 2009 |
Published date | 27 May 2009 |
Docket Number | District Court Appeal No 44 of 2008 |
6 May 2009 |
|
Chao Hick Tin JA:
Introduction
(a) police photographs of the accident scene;
(b) a police sketch plan of the accident scene; and
(c) a police report made by the first respondent.
During the cross-examination, CKL had to admit that he had no personal knowledge of the accident or of the documents exhibited. Counsel for the respondents elected not to call any evidence and submitted that there was no case to answer.
The evidence issue
To continue reading
Request your trial2 cases
-
Wolero Pte Ltd v Lianne Chia (Lee Kwang Hwee, third party)
...of the Accident. In this regard, counsel for the Plaintiff relied on Chua Kee Lam (next friend to Chua Peck Seng) v Moksha and another [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1010 where Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin held that documents the authenticity of which was not challenged would form part of the evidence be......
-
Chong Chye Kong v Chin Chee Poh
...a collision and sounding the horn alone may not be sufficient32. In Chua Kee Lam (next friend to Chua Peck Seng) v Moksha and another [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1010, the court found that the appellant (the cyclist) had cycled diagonally across the road without regard to the safety of other road users......