Clark Jonathan Michael v Lee Khee Chung
Judge | Judith Prakash J |
Judgment Date | 15 September 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGHC 204 |
Citation | [2009] SGHC 204 |
Subject Matter | Damages,Assessment |
Year | 2009 |
Defendant Counsel | Ramesh Appoo (Just Law LLC) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lee Yuk Lan (Benedict Chan & Company) |
Published date | 28 September 2009 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
15 September 2009 |
Judgment reserved. |
Judith Prakash J:
Introduction
2 The AR made the following awards in favour of the plaintiff:
General Damages |
||
i. |
pain and suffering and loss of amenities |
) |
ii. |
losses due to one year delay in graduation |
) $25,000 |
iii. |
contingent losses’ |
) |
Special Damages |
||
iv. |
General medical expenses |
$1,808.90 |
v. |
Medical expenses for osteopathic and |
Disallowed |
vi. |
Medical expenses incurred in Australia |
$500 |
vii. |
Expenses for physician prescribed medications |
$1,800 |
viii. |
Expenses for physician prescribed services |
$850 |
ix. |
Expenses for transportation |
$2,000 |
x. |
Future medical expenses |
Disallowed |
xi. |
Pre-trial loss of income |
Disallowed |
xii. |
Loss of future earnings |
Disallowed |
xiii. |
Loss of earning capacity |
$35,000 |
|
Total |
$66,958.90 |
The facts
DATE |
INCIDENT |
7 October 2002 |
The defendant’s lorry crashed into the plaintiff’s car along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5. The plaintiff’s car was rendered a total loss. The plaintiff declined to leave with the ambulance crew that arrived at the accident scene. Instead, the plaintiff was taken by his wife to Dr Phoon Chiong Fook (“Dr Phoon”), his family doctor. Dr Phoon prescribed five days worth of Ponstan. |
9 October 2002 |
The plaintiff’s second visit to Dr Phoon. Dr Phoon sent the plaintiff to East Shore Hospital for an x-ray. |
11 October 2002 |
The plaintiff returned to see Dr Phoon. Dr Phoon agreed, at the plaintiff’s suggestion, that the plaintiff should see Mr Phillipe Steiner (“Mr Steiner”), a physiotherapist, for treatment. |
11 October 2002 – |
The plaintiff went to Mr Steiner’s clinic for treatment on five different occasions. On the first three occasions, the plaintiff was treated by Mr Steiner’s assistant and the last two times by Mr Steiner himself. The plaintiff unilaterally decided to discontinue these visits. |
22 October 2002 |
The plaintiff saw Dr Phoon for the fourth time after the accident. Dr Phoon prescribed five days worth of Ponstan. |
3 November 2002 |
The plaintiff saw Dr Phoon for the fifth time. At the plaintiff’s suggestion, Dr Phoon agreed that the plaintiff should see Dr Wong Merng Koon (“Dr Wong”), Senior Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Co-Director of the Trauma Service at Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”). |
13 November 2002 |
The plaintiff visited Dr Lopez Rodriguez Eufemio (“Dr Lopez”) for the first time to seek osteopathic treatment. The plaintiff continues to see Dr Lopez for treatment. |
18 November 2002 – |
The plaintiff visited Dr Wong on ten different occasions during this period. From then onwards, Dr Wong co-ordinated the plaintiff’s care. Dr Wong also referred the plaintiff to a few other specialists in SGH. |
25 November 2002 – |
The plaintiff attended six physiotherapy sessions during this period. The plaintiff found them unhelpful. |
18 December 2002, |
The plaintiff visited Dr Tan Nam Guan (“Dr Tan”), a Senior Consultant ENT Surgeon, on these dates for management of the plaintiff’s alleged tinnitus. |
19 February 2003, |
The plaintiff visited Dr Lim Shih Hui (“Dr Lim”), Chief of Service at SGH’s Neurology Department, on these dates for management of the plaintiff’s alleged headache. |
19 February 2003 – |
The plaintiff was treated by Dr Cui Shu Li at SGH’s Acupuncture Unit. |
8 July 2003 |
The plaintiff first consulted with Dr Yeo Sow Nam (“Dr Yeo”) on this date. Dr Yeo is Director of the Pain Management Program and Consultant Pain Specialist at SGH. The plaintiff continues to see Dr Yeo. |
12 August 2003 |
The plaintiff visited Ms Esther Tan, a psychologist, to learn cognitive behaviour therapy. |
6 October 2003 |
The plaintiff consulted with Dr Chan Yew Meng (“Dr Chan”), a specialist in tinnitus. |
21 October 2003 – |
The plaintiff admitted himself into Samajam Ayurvedic Hospital and Nursing Home in India to seek Ayurvedic treatment from Dr K Sasidharan (“Dr Sasidharan”) |
February 2004 |
The plaintiff left for Australia to resume his Nursing Science programme at the University of Melbourne. |
March 2004 |
The plaintiff commenced semester 3 of the Nursing Science programme. |
November 2004 |
The plaintiff graduated from the University of Melbourne with a degree in Nursing Science. |
December 2004 |
The plaintiff applied to several hospitals for a job and returned to Singapore to await a response. |
January 2005 |
The plaintiff was offered a job at the Melbourne Clinic. |
June 2005 |
The plaintiff began work at the Melbourne Clinic. |
The appeal
6 The appeal focussed on the AR’s reasons for the various awards that he had made and I will discuss these at the same time as I deal with the various arguments put forward as to why the awards should be increased (plaintiff) or decreased (defendant). It is worth reminding myself, however, that as an appellate court, I must be slow to disturb the AR’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence: see Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chiew Hock
Whether the AR was correct in awarding $25,000 to the plaintiff as damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, losses due to one year delay in graduation and contingent loss
7 The AR was satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff had suffered a whiplash injury as a result of the accident. He considered that the plaintiff had suffered a serious neck injury that had resulted in persistent pain and stiffness of the neck, headaches and tinnitus. He had also suffered numbness in his arm. The plaintiff had submitted that $80,000 would be an appropriate sum for his pain and injury. The AR considered that this sum was excessive to the point of being unreasonable. In awarding the sum of $25,000, he stated that he took into account the stiffness, tinnitus, pain and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff as well as his one year delay in graduation and the so called “contingent costs” claimed by the plaintiff. He also used the case of Tan Siew Bin Ronnie v Chin Wee Keong
To continue reading
Request your trial