Hanson Ingrid Christina and Others v Tan Puey Tze and Another Appeal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Judith Prakash J
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 203
• Date: 28 November 2007
• Subject Matter: Methods of assessing dependency,Whether wife dependant,Decree nisi granted but decree absolute not issued,Damages,Section 20 Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed),Percentage deduction method not appropriate in all cases,Deceased having fluctuating income and deliberately underutilising established income-earning skills,Dependency claim by wife,Assessment,Traditional method and percentage deduction method,Dependency claim,Whether maintenance orders appropriate starting points in assessing dependency,Wife expecting to receive monthly maintenance payments from former husband even after decree absolute issued,Difference between maintenance orders and dependency awards
• Docket Number: Suit No 681 of 2005 (Registrar's Appeals Nos 160 and 169 of 2007)
• Published date: 28 December 2007
• Defendant Counsel: Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Gani and Sharanjit Kaur (KhattarWong)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lok Vi Ming SC, Edric Pan and Loh Jen Wei (Rodyk & Davidson)

28 November 2007 Judgment reserved.

Judith Prakash J

1 At about 3.45 am on 18 December 2004, the late Mr Alexander Yee-Kui Eu Jr @ Sandy Eu (“Sandy Eu”) was a passenger in a car that collided with a stationary motor lorry along the North-South Highway in Malaya. The car was driven by Tan Puey Tze, the defendant. Sandy Eu passed away shortly after the accident.

2 At the time of his death, Sandy Eu had 3 dependents and they are the plaintiffs in the present action. The first plaintiff, Ingrid Christina Hanson (“Ingrid Hanson”), was Sandy Eu’s wife and is presently 47 years old. The second and third plaintiffs, Eu Zai De Alexander III (“Alexander”) and Eu Zai Feng Elliot (“Elliot”), are the sons of Sandy Eu and Ingrid Hanson, and are now 19 and 18 years old respectively.

3 Pursuant to ss 20 and 21 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) (the “Act”), the plaintiffs commenced the present action claiming dependency and damages for bereavement.

4 The facts of this case are somewhat novel in the sense that although the marriage of Sandy Eu and Ingrid Hanson had broken down and a decree nisi had been granted in 2002, at the time of the accident, the decree absolute had not been issued. This raised an interesting legal issue as to whether Ingrid Hanson was entitled to sustain her claim for dependency as Sandy Eu’s wife.

5 Soon after the plaintiffs commenced proceedings, the defendant applied (vide SUM 6185/2005) to strike out Ingrid Hanson’s claim on the basis that she was not Sandy Eu’s lawful wife at the time of his death and therefore not a dependent. The assistant registrar, Dorcas Quek (the “AR”), dismissed the defendant’s application and held that as the decree absolute had not been issued, the legal form of the marriage remained intact. Ingrid Hanson was therefore still considered Sandy Eu’s wife and could maintain her claim. The defendant did not appeal against this decision.

6 In February 2006, by consent, interlocutory judgment was entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant, with general and special damages, including pre-trial and post-trial dependency, to be assessed by the Registrar. The hearing was held before the AR who subsequently awarded a total sum of S$1,223,200 + US$160,000 + A$293,356.51 to the plaintiffs with interest of 3% to run on the loss of dependency from the date of death to the date of trial. The breakdown of the final sums allowed is set out in the following summary found in the AR’s grounds of decision:

Party	Multiplicand	Multiplier	Other expenses	Time	Calculation of dependency	Value dependency
Ingrid Hanson	$4,200	4 years	Nil	Dec 2004 to Dec 2008	$4,200 x 48	S$201,600
			Bereavement			S$10,000 TOTAL: S$211,600
Alexander	$5,900	7 years		Dec 2004 to Dec 2011	$5,900 x 84	S$495,600
			Singapore American School Fee	2005 Spring semester	S$12,000	$12,000
			Undergraduate tuition fees at US University (4 years)	2007 to 2011	US$160,000 (based on average fee of US$40,000 per year)	US$160,000
						TOTAL: S$507,600 + US$160,000
Elliot	$4,200	10 years		Dec 2004 to Dec 2014	$4,200 x 120	S$504,000
			College fees for foundation year in Australia	2005 – 2006	A$16,004 (allowed in full because Sandy Eu would not have been funding Elliot’s university education at this moment	A$16,004
			English for Introductory Academic Programme (before Undergraduate studies in Australia	2006	A$2,435.51	A$2,435.51
			Undergraduate tuition fees at Monash University (6 years)	2006-2012	Year 1: A$38,000; Years 2-6: A$236,917	A$274,917
						TOTAL: S$504,000 + A$293,356.51
GRAND TOTAL						S$1,223,200 + US$160,000 + A$293,356.51

Issues

7 Both parties appealed against the awards and the issues that arise from these appeals can be summarised as follows:

(a) Sandy Eu’s income – What was Sandy Eu’s income at the time of his death? What would his likely income be had it not been for the accident?

(b) Appropriate multiplicands – Are maintenance orders relevant to the calculation of the loss of dependency? What are the appropriate multiplicands for the plaintiffs? Can the court take into account income derived from assets and capital (besides earned income) when assessing dependency?

(c) Appropriate multipliers – What are the appropriate multipliers for the plaintiffs?

Sandy Eu’s income

8 The most contentious issue before the AR was what Sandy Eu’s income would have been had he lived. The AR held that after 2004, he would have earned a maximum of $300,000 per annum and would also have had unearned or investment income of $100,000 per annum. In total therefore, she considered that his annual estimated projected income would have been $400,000. On the appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the minimum sum Sandy Eu would have earned would have been $450,000 from employment and $100,000 from income but that if the court accepted that he had a chance of becoming a private banker or investment banker from 2005 onwards, his total annual income would have been between $700,000 and $1.1m. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the AR had been too generous to the plaintiffs and that not only should she not have taken the investment income into account but also that she should have assessed his annual income at the level of only $91,000 per year. This issue therefore was a highly contentious one on the appeal as well. It has to be dealt with first because the determination of the projected income would have an impact on the dependency claims.

9 There were two main difficulties with the issue. First, the determination of Sandy Eu’s income at the time of his death was problematic because evidence was given that Sandy Eu had been trying to lower his income and conceal his assets as a result of the matrimonial proceedings. It was therefore unclear whether his declared income at that point in time was also his true income. Second, the court was also asked to engage in conjecture as to whether Sandy Eu would have become a private banker in today’s burgeoning economy, and if so, what his income would have been.

10 As to Sandy Eu’s income at the time of his death, the AR declined to find that Sandy Eu was actually earning more than he declared. The AR also held that it was uncertain whether Sandy Eu would have been employed as a private banker, and even so, whether he would have been a successful private banker. The AR however found that Sandy Eu would probably have remained in the financial industry and on that basis would have earned $300,000 per annum. She also carried out a detailed review of Sandy Eu’s investments and came to the conclusion that a figure of $100,000 per year was reasonable for this item.

11 The evidence in relation to this issue, which is wholly factual, can be summarised as follows. Richard Hoon (“Mr Hoon”), the head of an international executive search consultancy, testified that Sandy Eu had intended to be a private banker as Mr Hoon had interviewed Sandy Eu in 2002 with a view to placing him as a private banker. Further, Mr Hoon gave evidence that in his personal experience, Sandy Eu’s strong networking abilities, good relationship skills and knowledge of financial products put him in good stead to be a highly sought-after and successful private banker. Counsel for the plaintiffs also argued that Mr Hoon was in an ideal position to assess Sandy Eu’s abilities as Mr Hoon had known Sandy Eu personally since 1985.

Sandy Eu’s strong networking ability

12 Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that Sandy Eu was very skilled at networking and had a huge pool of friends and contacts. Sandy Eu was a grandson of the late Mr Eu Tong Sen and many of his friends and business contacts were high net-worth individuals who held senior positions in large corporations and organisations. Sandy Eu was also actively involved in the Young President’s Organisation, the membership of which consisted of corporate executives, entrepreneurs and persons holding head managerial roles in companies.

Sandy Eu’s good relationship skills

13 To be a successful private banker, it is undisputed that good relationship skills are necessary. High net-worth individuals, or for that matter any individual, would be hesitant to entrust their wealth to somebody whom they did not trust or have confidence in. In this regard, the plaintiffs’ witnesses had testified that as Sandy Eu possessed a charismatic personality and a likeable disposition, he would have had no difficulty in converting his contacts into clients.

Sandy Eu’s knowledge of financial products

14 Sandy Eu had a degree in economics and a master’s degree in commerce. He was also a chartered accountant and a qualified dealer. The plaintiffs further argued that as Sandy Eu had been involved in the financial and banking industry for at least 20 years prior to his death, he possessed the requisite knowledge to be a private banker. In this respect, there is no doubt that Sandy Eu had an impressive pedigree in the banking industry having been the Managing Director and Country Head at Lehman Brothers, Regional Director of Salomon Brothers, General Manager and Executive Director at Eu Yan Sang (HK) Ltd, Managing Director and Executive Director at DBS Securities Singapore, and Managing Director of DBS Group Global Private Banking.

15 Sandy Eu had, however, never been employed as a private banker. While he had worked briefly in DBS Group Global Private Banking from 1999 to 2000, he was not employed as a private banker but instead as a manager of the private banking sector. Mr Hoon and Mr Patrick Teo, a former Managing Director of Rothschilds Singapore, did not think that this lack of experience would have been a handicap had Sandy Eu wanted to go into private banking. They testified that many of Sandy Eu’s previous jobs entailed private banking functions, i.e. building up client relationships...