Jaidin bin Jaiman v Loganathan a/l Karpaya and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Philip Pillai J
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 199
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit 370 of 2011/Q
• Year: 2012
• Published date: 08 October 2012
• Hearing Date: 02 July 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Han Hean Juan (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Roger Yek (Lawrence Chua & Partners),Anthony Wee (United Legal Alliance LLC)
• Subject Matter: Res Judicata,Issue Estoppel
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 199

Philip Pillai J:

The Plaintiff’s claim against the first and second Defendants arises out of a road accident on 14 December 2009. At the material time, the Plaintiff was a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing license plate number JJR 1500 ridden by the first Defendant the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was travelling straight along International Road and averred that the traffic lights turned green in his favour as he approached the junction with Jalan Boon Lay. The driver of the car bearing license plate number SFA 3400 H, had travelled along International Road from the opposite direction and was making a right turn at the junction leading to Jalan Boon Lay. He averred that the right turn arrow was showing green for him at the time. The two vehicles collided in the junction and the driver of the car was charged by the Traffic Police for inconsiderate driving, for which he paid a composition fine.

The motorcyclist was injured in the same accident, and filed a claim against the car driver in DC Suit No 3018 of 2010. The claim had proceeded for Court Dispute Resolution in the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre at the Subordinate Courts. The Settlement Judge indicated preliminary liability apportionment to be 80% as against the driver. However, the motorcyclist subsequently compromised his claim and consented to Interlocutory Judgment being recorded for 60% as against the driver, the damages to be assessed.

In the present suit, the pillion rider claims damages from both the motorcyclist and the driver for injuries sustained from the same accident. The action is bifurcated and brought in the High Court as the final judgment is to be enforced out of Singapore. The only issue before me is whether the consent judgment which recorded the apportionment of liability as between the driver defendant and the motorcyclist defendant is res judicata in this action by the pillion rider against the driver and the motorcyclist for the same accident. The driver’s case is that the consent Interlocutory Judgment in DC Suit No 3018 meant that the issue of liability for the pillion rider’s claim in the present action is res judicata. The motorcyclist’s case is that res judicata does not apply and that the court should determine apportionment afresh. In such a fresh apportionment of liability, the motorcyclist submits that a 20%-80% apportionment would be more appropriate in the light of the preliminary indicative apportionment of the Settlement Judge in Court Dispute Resolution.

The relevant principle of res judicata here is issue estoppel, a principle which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been litigated and decided on the merits. In Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No. 301 [2005] SGCA 22 (“Lee Tat”) at [14]-[15], the Court of Appeal held that the following requirements are necessary to establish issue estoppel: There must be a final and conclusive judgment on the merits; The judgment must be by a court of competent jurisdiction; There must be identity between the parties to the two actions that are being compared; and There must be an identity of the subject matter in the two proceedings. Upon consideration of the abovementioned requirements, it is my decision that res judicata applies in the present case and that judgment should be entered to reflect the consent Interlocutory judgment entered in DC Suit No 3018. My reasons are as follows.

The motorcyclist argues that the first requirement in Lee Tat of a final and conclusive judgment on the merits has not been met in the present case. This argument is misconceived. The question here is whether res judicata only applies to judgments on the merits or extends to consent judgments. This particular question was not before the Court of Appeal in Lee Tat on the facts. The fact that an...