Henry Tan Boon Hee v Sabina Yeo Hwee Bin Mrs Sabina Cheong Hwee Bin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Georgina Lum Baoling
• Judgment Date: 15 March 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGMC 6
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MC No. 13480 of 2014, AD 852 of 2015
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Year: 2016
• Hearing Date: 15 March 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lim Fung Peen (Crossborders LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Yasmeen J Marican and Kok Yee Keong (M/s Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Damages,Assessment,Causation,Burden of Proof,Motor Accident Claim,Fraud,Negligence,Misrepresentation
• Citation: [2016] SGMC 6

Deputy Registrar Georgina Lum Baoling: Introduction

These grounds of decision relate to an assessment of damages arising from a motor accident which was heard over several tranches in October and November 2015 (“the Assessment”).

Background Facts

The Plaintiff is the owner of Vehicle no. SC9921D (“the Plaintiff’s Vehicle”) and the Defendant is the owner of Vehicle no. SGE812P (“the Defendant’s Vehicle”).

It is undisputed that on 15 January 2014 at around 9pm: (a) the Plaintiff’s wife, Ms Cammy Wong (“Ms Wong”) was driving the Plaintiff’s Vehicle; (b) the Defendant was driving the Defendant’s Vehicle; and (c) the Defendant’s Vehicle had collided into the rear of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle along Rotan Lane turning into Race Course Road (“the Accident”).

Proceedings were commenced in 2014 and on 22 July 2015, Interlocutory Judgment was entered by consent for the Defendant to pay 90% of the Plaintiff’s damages to be assessed with costs and interests reserved to the Registrar.

The issues before this Court (as summarised below) therefore entirely relate to the assessment of damages arising from the Accident as liability between parties has been resolved.

Issues before the Court

The Plaintiff is claiming for an aggregate sum of S$2,685.01 from the Defendant being 90% of his pleaded loss and damage particularised as follows: (a) Costs of Repairs at S$2,247 [S$2100 plus GST amounting to S$147]; (b) Loss of Use at S$200; (c) Cost of Rental at S$500; (d) Cost of the LTA search at S$7.35; and (e) Cost of the GIA report at S$29.00.

The Defendant admits that damage was caused to the Plaintiff’s Vehicle but is contesting the extent of the damage as particularised in the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defendant has pleaded inter alia that: The vehicle sustained “very minor damage…at the location of the collision, if at all…in comparison with the damage allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff as pleaded”; The damages claimed by the Plaintiff “are false and untrue”; The Plaintiff had falsely represented the extent of damage to, the cost of repairs to and the loss of use of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as a result of the collision; The Workshop had falsely represented the extent of damage to, the cost of repairs to and the loss of use of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as a result of the collision; The Plaintiff has committed fraud and/or deceit against the Defendant; The Plaintiff has been negligent and breached a duty of care (if any) owed to the Defendant in commencing and proceeding with his claim in the Suit; The Plaintiff had “negligently, recklessly and/or knowing it to be false and untrue with the intention to deceive and defraud the Defendant” made representations to the Defendant on the extent of the damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, costs of repairs of the damage to the vehicle and the loss of use of the vehicle to the Defendant’s detriment; and/or The Plaintiff had “knowingly, negligently and/or reckless(ly)” allowed or acquiesced to the “false representations” (if any) made by the Workshop on the extent of damage to, the cost of repairs to and the loss of use of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as a result of the collision.

Applying the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v. Western Copper Co Ltd [2015] SGCA 71 and based on a review of the pleadings filed herein, the issues in this present Assessment are as follows: (a) the Court has to first determine if the Plaintiff has succeeded in proving on a balance of probabilities that the damages he seeks are caused by the Accident; and (b) If the Plaintiff succeeds in discharging his legal burden of proof, the Court will then have to determine if the Defendant has succeeded in proving her pleaded case that the Plaintiff had: (i) committed fraud and deceit; (ii) been negligent and breached a duty of care to the Defendant; and/or (iii) made false, negligent and/or reckless misrepresentations to the Defendant on the loss and damage suffered from the Accident.

The Parties Respective Arguments

In support of his abovementioned claim, the Plaintiff takes the position that: (a) the present case relates to a simple motor accident claim in which no fraud, negligence and/or recklessness has occurred; (b) the loss and damage claimed was clearly caused by the Accident based on a review of all existing contemporaneous witness evidence and documents; and (c) the present Suit has been turned from a “molehill into a mountain”¹ based on nothing more than the suspicions and bare, unparticularised and/or unsupported allegations made by the Defendant.

In response, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed and the sum of only S$250 should be awarded (if at all) because: The light impact traffic collision could not have caused the damage claimed by the Plaintiff herein²; The Plaintiff and Ms Wong’s evidence on the events which had occurred between the Accident and their delivery of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle to the repair workshop is “riddled with inconsistencies”³; The evidence from the Defendant’s Insurer’s appointed surveyor’s representative Mr Chua should not be relied on as he did not give an opinion on causation, merely observed the damage to the Plaintiff’s Vehicle at the Workshop and “lacks sound reasoning”⁴; The repeated downwards adjustment of recommended repair costs by the repair workshop and the Defendant’s Insurer’s Surveyor “raised striking suspicion”⁵; There is “an admitted and proven widespread practice of motor workshops claiming excessive and/or inflated repairs which are acceded to by motor insurers either due to inconvenience or high legal costs in challenging a claim or difficulty in obtaining/presenting evidence in court"⁶; and/or “the Plaintiff can and ought to be taken to have authorised or acquiesced the excessive or inflated claims by Fastech and thus is equally guilty of fraud/deceit and/or negligence in bringing this action against the Defendant”⁷.

Applicable Legal Principles

It is trite law that in order to succeed in his present claim for loss and damage arising from the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff has to prove to this Court that the damage suffered to his vehicle was caused on a balance of probabilities by the Accident which the Defendant has conceded liability for.

Correspondingly, it is the burden of the Defendant to prove her abovementioned case that there was fraud, negligence and/or misrepresentation by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the Defendant’s assertions that fraud had occurred, it is an established legal principle that whether pleaded as a cause of action or a defence, the burden of proving fraud is on the party who is asserting or relying upon it: Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Nilex Supply Co) v. Lek Benedict & Ors [2005] SGCA 27, Ng Bok Eng Holdings v. Wong Ser Wan [2005] SGCA 23 and Tay Chwee Hiang v. Poh Tian Pow and Anor [2005] SGMC 24.

The standard of proof the Defendant has to discharge is succinctly described by the Court of Appeal in Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Nilex Supply Co) v. Lek Benedict & Ors (supra) as “a burden that is higher than on a balance of probabilities, but lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt”.

In the present case, to succeed in her claims for fraud, deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation, the Defendant therefore has to prove on a standard higher than a balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt that: (a) a false representation of fact was made by the words or conduct of the Plaintiff; (b) the representation was made with the intention that it would be acted on by the Defendant; (c) the Defendant acted upon the false statement; (d) the Defendant suffered damage by so doing; and/or (e) the representation was made with the knowledge that it was false or in the absence of any genuine belief that it was true: Panatron Pte Ltd v. Lee Cheow Lee [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435.

For her claim in negligent and/or reckless misrepresentation, the Defendant only has to prove the first four constituent elements of fraudulent misrepresentation as stated above: Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v. Cornelder China (Singapore) [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501.

With respect to the Defendant’s claim in negligence, she has to persuade this Court to accept her case that “the Plaintiff owed a duty of care to the Defendant to ensure that he has a reasonable basis for bringing this action, and that the remedy sought is not disproportionate to the basis for bringing the claim”⁸, that he had breached a standard of care imposed by law on any said duty of care to her in advancing his claim herein, that the said breach caused loss to her and that the loss is not too remote to be recoverable: AYW v. AYX [2015] SGHC 312.

Causation

After a review of the submissions made by parties, the testimony given by witnesses during cross-examination, the documents tendered for the Assessment and for all the reasons below, the Court is of the view that the Plaintiff has proven on a balance of probabilities that: No further accident or incident had occurred after the Accident to cause additional damage to the Plaintiff’s Vehicle; The day after the Accident, on 16 January 2014, the Plaintiff and Ms Wong had...