Jaidin bin Jaiman v Loganathan a/l Karpaya

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2012
• Date: 01 October 2012
• Docket Number: Suit 370 of 2011
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Jaidin bin Jaiman

Plaintiff

and

Loganathan a/l Karpaya and another

Defendant

[2012] SGHC 199

Philip Pillai J

Suit 370 of 2011

High Court

Res Judicata—Issue estoppel—Whether consent judgment between car driver and motorcyclist for injury to motorcyclist in road accident was res judicata in later suit by pillion rider for injury caused against both car driver and motorcyclist from same accident

The plaintiff was a pillion rider on a motorcycle ridden by the first defendant, which collided with a car driven by the second defendant. The motorcyclist was injured and filed a claim against the car driver in District Court Suit No 3018 of 2010, which proceeded for court dispute resolution where the settlement judge indicated preliminary liability apportionment to be 80% as against the driver. However, the motorcyclist subsequently consented to interlocutory judgment being recorded for 60% as against the driver. In the present suit, the pillion rider claimed damages from both the motorcyclist and the driver for injuries sustained from the same accident. The issue before the court was whether the consent judgment between the driver and motorcyclist was res judicata in this action by the pillion rider arising from the same accident against the driver and the motorcyclist. The driver submitted that the issue of liability for the pillion rider's claim was res judicata, while the motorcyclist denied that res judicata applied and submitted that the court should determine apportionment afresh.

Held:

(1) The relevant principle of res judicata in this suit was issue estoppel. In Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301[2005] 3 SLR (R)157, the Court of Appeal held that the following requirements were necessary to establish issue estoppel: (a) a final and conclusive judgment on the merits; (b) a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) identity of parties and (d) identity of subject matter in the two proceedings: at [4].

(2) As regards the first requirement of a final and conclusive judgment on the merits, the fact that an order was entered by consent would not prevent it forming the basis of an issue estoppel as long as the order was final. The consent interlocutory judgment was final as there remained nothing more to be decided in relation to the principal parties' liabilities arising from the accident: at [5].

(3) It was not disputed that the consent judgment was entered by a court of competent jurisdiction: at [6].

(4) As regards the third requirement, ‘identity of parties’ had to mean the identity of principal and effective parties to the determination of the apportionment of liability between the driver and the motorcyclist. The pillion rider was not a principal or effective party to this determination: at [7].

(5) There was an identity of subject matter in the two suits as the questions of fact involved in the apportionment of liability between the driver and the motorcyclist for injuries to the pillion rider in the present suit did not differ from the issues of fact in DC Suit 3018/2010: at [8].

Bell v Holmes [1956] 1 WLR 1359 (refd)

Craddock's Transport Ltd v Stuart [1970] NZLR 499 (refd)

Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR (R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld)

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301 [2005] 3 SLR (R) 157; [2005] 3 SLR 157 (folld)

New Brunswick Railway Co v British and French Trust Corp Ltd [1939] AC 1 (refd)

North West Water Ltd v Binnie & Partners [1990] 3 All ER 547 (refd)

Tan Yeow Khoon v Tan Yeow Tat [2003] 3 SLR (R) 486; [2003] 3 SLR 486 (folld)

Randolph v Tuck [1962] 1 QB 175 (not folld)

Wall v Radford [1991] 2 All ER 741; [1992] RTR 109 (refd)

Wood v Luscombe [1966] 1 QB 169 (refd)

Michael Han Hean Juan (Hoh Law Corporation) for the plaintiff

Roger Yek (Lawrence Chua & Partners) for...