Jeya and Others v Lui Yew Kee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 February 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 27
• Docket Number: Suit No 5866 of 1986
• Date: 14 February 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: S Selvaraj (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 27
• Defendant Counsel: NK Pillai (Harry Elias & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether costs of psychiatric examination for purposes of s 3 Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap 178) could be ordered against defendant,Tort,Pain and suffering,Personal injuries cases,Estate and dependency claim,Pre-trial and future loss of earnings,Damages,Measure of damages,Loss of earnings for lost years,Death,Loss of CPF contributions as part of the dependency loss,Loss of wife's services to husband

Cur Adv Vult

On 17 October 1984, the first plaintiff and Liau Siew Eng (hereinafter called the `deceased`) were crossing Boon Keng Road when they were knocked down by a motor car which was being driven by the defendant along Boon Keng Road towards Lavender Street. Arising from the accident, the first plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries and consequential loss. Lee Ing Hoe and Toh Keng Kheong Ronald, the administrator and co-administrator respectively of the estate of the deceased, as the second plaintiffs, claimed damages for the estate of the deceased and also for the benefit of the dependents of the deceased.

Before the hearing commenced, liability was admitted by the defendant as to 75% and by the plaintiffs as to 25%, subject to the court`s approval for the second plaintiffs on account of the minority interests involved. Special damages in respect of the first plaintiff were agreed at $1,000. In respect of the second plaintiffs, the following amounts of damages were agreed: (a) $7,000 for loss of expectation of life; (b) $5,030 for funeral expenses; and (c) $1,000 for costs of letters of administration.

First plaintiff `s claim

The first plaintiff was a production operator at General Electric Consumer Electronics Pte Ltd (`the company`) and 28 years old at the time of the accident. Married to her husband in 1974 in India, she arrived in Singapore in 1976 and acquired Singapore citizenship. On 19 December 1983, she joined the company in order to alleviate financial hardship in the home and worked on the night shift six days a week. Nonetheless, during this time, she still attended to all the household work and marketing. Whilst at work, a neighbour would take care of her two sons who were aged four and seven at the time of the accident. Her job in the company involved loading and unloading light materials into an automated insertion machine which would produce PCB boards. Owing to the relative complexity of the PCB board, her skills would have had to be higher than that of the more run-of-the-mill assembly-type operator. She received a gross salary of about $366 per month and was also entitled to a 13th month bonus as is common in Singapore employment. As a result of the accident, she was retrenched on 10 May 1985, the same day on which, as a result of recession, a general retrenchment exercise took place in the firm. It could not be ascertained whether the first plaintiff would have been retrenched regardless of the accident as part of this retrenchment exercise. The criteria for retrenchment was citizenship and/or performance. The first plaintiff was a Singapore citizen. As for her performance, details could not be given as the record of her employment could not be found and most of her supervisors who had been working there during the time of her employment had been retrenched.

As a result of the accident, the first plaintiff suffered the following injuries: (a) multiple abrasions; (b) avulsion fracture of L1 to L5 transverse processes on the right side; and (c) head injury with fracture of the frontal bone and damage to the frontal lobe. The multiple abrasions left a permanent 10cm by 4cm scar over the posterolateral aspect of her right thigh and a permanent 6cm diameter scar on the back of her right shoulder. As regards the avulsion fracture of L1 to L5 transverse processes, an examination by Dr Lai Choon Hin (PW3) in August 1990 showed healing and he testified to the effect that there was no risk of osteoarthritis setting in. Nonetheless, in relation to the first plaintiff`s complaint of backache, he was of the view that the backaches would continue into the future. Counsel for the defendant disputed the existence of the backaches, pointing out that the complaint had only been made on one occasion.

The head injury was alleged to have effected a change in the first plaintiff`s personality (for example, apathy and emotional instability), a reduction in her IQ and occasional lapses of short-term memory. Medical evidence differed as to its seriousness and treatability. According to the report of the then head of the neurosurgery department of Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Dr Baratham (PW1), the first plaintiff merely had a `fairly mild head injury` and `no definite effects result from brain injury`. However, in the course of giving his evidence, he said that he had been mistaken in his assessment and he now agreed with Dr Balaji Sadasivan (PW2) that the injury was severe and accounted for her present mental state. Dr Ong Thiew Chai (PW4), a psychiatrist at Woodbridge Hospital, was of the opinion that the first plaintiff suffered from a chronic organic brain syndrome characterized by intellectual and memory deficits and that, given that if there was any improvement it would have taken place in the first two years, it was not likely that she would show any improvement in the near future. In contrast to Dr Ong`s finding that the first plaintiff now had an IQ of 55, Dr Douglas SG Kong (DW1) in a report of 27 September 1991 made after two interviews with the first plaintiff, disagreed with Dr Ong`s view that the first plaintiff was of unsound mind and incapable of managing herself or her affairs. According to him, she suffered from phobic anxiety (coupled with compensation neurosis) which could be overcome by specific treatment, and there was every possibility that she could improve in the future and reach a state approximate to her previous level of functioning. Nonetheless, in the same report of 27 September 1991, he acknowledged that there was a possibility that she might never attain her previous level of functioning.

The multiple abrasions and scars

On behalf of the defendant it was submitted that a sum of $2,000 should be awarded under this head since the scars were not on a prominent area of the first plaintiff`s body and could be hidden by her clothing. Counsel for the first plaintiff, stressing the permanent nature of the scars, submitted that a sum of $5,000 was more appropriate and referred to Chua Min Hua v Tan Vincent in which $3,500 was awarded for lacerations, 8cm and 6cm surgical scars over the right foot and slight scarring over the left elbow and left knee.

Injury to lumbar vertebrae

Counsel for the first plaintiff submitted that $15,000 should be awarded, citing Hamzah bin Abdul Ghani v Verghese Thomas and Appandurai @ Raju s/o Varthan v Lim Puk Tow reported in KS Dass Quantum in Accident Claims (Vol 1) at p 402 in which $18,000 and $15,000 respectively were awarded. The injury in those cases resulted either in residual deformities or severe backache whereas, in the instant case, counsel for the defendant submitted that there were no residuals except for occasional backache which was unsubstantiated. Awards in cases cited varied from $3,000 to $6,500 for cases was there was healing and/or stable conditions to awards of up to $12,000 where the plaintiff was left with chronic pain and/or residual deformities. Owing to the defendant`s view that the injury had completely healed and the first plaintiff`s complaints of backache were unsubstantiated, counsel for the defendant submitted that only $7,000 be awarded under this head.

Brain injury

In contrast to the contention of counsel for the first plaintiff that $80,000 be awarded for the head injury, counsel for the defendant submitted $35,000 should be the figure. A number of cases were cited by both counsel with awards ranging from $15,000 to $70,000, giving an average of $45,800. Those on the higher end of the scale tended to involve plaintiffs who were severely impaired mentally, such that they could not lead an independent existence. Counsel for the defendant justified the proposed sum of $35,000 on the grounds that the first plaintiff was not so intellectually affected that she was unable to attend to her own needs or that of her family. From the evidence, it appeared that the first plaintiff was still able to dress herself and attend to her own needs, but was only unable to handle the finances of her family or go marketing unattended.

Pre-trial loss of earnings

After the accident, the first plaintiff received some sums of money from her employer at various intervals until May 1985. Her counsel, in a detailed submission,...