Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan Teng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 13 March 2008
• Date: 13 March 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 118 of 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Ng Chan Teng

Defendant

[2008] SGCA 12

Chan Sek Keong CJ

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeal No 118 of 2007

Court of Appeal

Courts and Jurisdiction–District Court–Jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort –Statutory limit for damages–Tortfeasor accepting 70% liability in consent interlocutory judgment–Whether victim could recover 70% of damages assessed capped at statutory limit or only 70% of statutory limit–Section 20 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)–Courts and Jurisdiction–High Court–Power to transfer proceedings from District Court to High Court–Whether assessment of damages proceedings could be transferred to High Court where interlocutory judgment had been entered in District Court–Section 54B Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Balance of account”–Section 20 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Otherwise”–Section 20 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Sufficient reason”–Section 54B Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

The respondent Mr Ng Chan Teng was involved in an industrial accident while working at the appellant Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd's premises. The former suffered severe injuries to his right arm as a result of the accident. The respondent then commenced proceedings in the District Court on the grounds that the appellant was negligent and/or had breached its statutory duties. The parties later agreed to enter consent interlocutory judgment, wherein the appellant accepted 70% liability with damages to be assessed.

The parties could not agree on the maximum quantum that the District Court could award on the basis of 70% liability. The respondent's position was that the maximum sum ought to be the District Court limit of $250,000 while the appellant's position was that the maximum amount that could be awarded was 70% of the District Court limit, ie, $175,000.

The matter was then referred to the District Court for determination pursuant to O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed). A deputy registrar of the Subordinate Courts made no order on the O 14 r 12 application as he thought that the proper forum for the determination of the issue ought to be the court hearing the assessment of damages. The appeal against the deputy registrar's decision was heard by a district judge, who held that the maximum sum awardable by the District Court at 70% liability was $175,000. The respondent then filed a further appeal to the High Court. The High Court allowed the respondent's appeal and held that the maximum sum awardable by the District Court at 70% liability was $250,000. Not satisfied with the High Court's decision, the appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The words “or otherwise” in s 20 (1) (a) of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) were wide enough to include a situation where reduction of the damages awarded was to be made as a result of a plaintiff's contributory negligence, and any such reduction should operate on the damages actually assessed and not on the District Court limit: at [29].

(2) To allow reductions for contributory negligence to be made from the assessed sum instead of from the District Court limit would be consonant with s 3 (3) of the Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed), which stated that where any contract or written law provided for the limitation of liability, the amount of damages recoverable by the claimant should not exceed the maximum limit so applicable: at [30].

(3) The specific holding in Ricky Charles s/o Gabriel Thanabalan v Chua Boon Yeow [2002] 1 SLR (R) 866 that an action commenced in the District Court might not be transferred to the High Court after an interlocutory judgment had been entered in the former court should no longer be followed: at [32].

(4) Where an interlocutory judgment had been entered in the District Court, an assessment of damages hearing could still be transferred to the High Court if no real or irretrievable prejudice would be caused to the defendant that could not be compensated by costs: at [34] and [39].

(5) The fact that there was a possibility that a plaintiff's damages would exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court would ordinarily be regarded as a sufficient reason for a transfer of the assessment of damages hearing from the District Court to the High Court: at [38].

Artt v W G & T Greer [1954] NI 112 (refd)

C & A Odlin Timber and Hardware Company Limited v Gray [1961] NZLR 411 (refd)

Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o Rangasamy [2004] 3 SLR (R) 193; [2004] 3 SLR 193 (refd)

Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 (refd)

Kelly v Stockport Corporation [1949] 1 All ER 893 (not folld)

Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor [2007] 3 SLR (R) 537; [2007] 3 SLR 537 (refd)

National Association of Local Government Officers v Bolton Corporation [1943] AC 166 (refd)

Ng Chan Teng v Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd [2007] SGDC 213 (refd)

Nichols v Patrick Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 457 (refd)

Pascall Ltd v Escott Ltd [1926] 2 WWR 21 (refd)

Ricky Charles s/o Gabriel Thanabalan v Chua Boon Yeow [2002] 1 SLR (R) 866; [2002] 3 SLR 307, HC (not folld)

Ricky Charles s/o Gabriel Thanabalan v Chua Boon Yeow [2003] 1 SLR (R) 511; [2003] 1 SLR 511, CA (not folld)

Turner v Berry (1850) 20 LJ Ex 89 (refd)

Woodhams v Newman (1849) 7 CB 654; 137 ER 259 (refd)

Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed)s 3 (3)

Factories Act (Cap 104,1998 Rev Ed) (repealed)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)O 14r 12

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed)s 38

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)ss 20, 54B (consd);ss 2,20 (1),20 (1) (a), 20 (2),54B (1)

Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW)s 140 (3) (b)

Contributory Negligence Act1947 (NZ)s 3 (1)

County Courts Act1846 (c 95) (UK) s 58

County Courts Act1856 (c 108) (UK) s 26

County Courts Act1959 (c 22) (UK)s 43 (1)

District Court Act1973 (NSW)ss 76 (2),76 (2) (b)

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (c 28) (UK)s 1 (2)

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 (c 23) (UK)ss 2 (1),2 (1) (b)

Workers' Compensation Act1926 (NSW)

K Anparasan and Sharon Lin (KhattarWong) for the appellant

N Srinivasan (Hoh Law Corporation) for the respondent.

V K Rajah JA

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Ng Chan Teng v Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd [2007] 4 SLR (R) 633 (“the Judgment”), which held that a plaintiff was entitled to recover damages up to a District Court's jurisdictional limit after taking into account any deduction for contributory negligence, if applicable. This means that a District Court may assess damages at a quantum greater than its jurisdictional limit, subject to the qualification that the final amount of damages ordered to be paid is within such limit. We agreed with the Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal. We now give the reasons for our decision.

The facts

2 The respondent in this appeal (who was the plaintiff in the originating suit), Mr Ng Chan Teng (“the respondent”), is a former employee of the appellant (the defendant in the originating suit), Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd (“the appellant”). Sometime in November 2001, the respondent was involved in an industrial accident while working at the appellant's premises. As a result of the accident, the respondent suffered severe injuries to his right arm.

3 The respondent then commenced proceedings in the District Court claiming that the appellant was liable in tort for negligence and/or breach of its statutory duties under the Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Rev Ed) (repealed on 1 March 2006). The reliefs sought were,inter alia, general damages and special damages quantified at $22,000.

4 On 7 May 2004, the parties agreed to enter a consent interlocutory judgment, wherein the appellant accepted 70% liability for the accident, with damages to be assessed. Thereafter, the respondent's then solicitors began corresponding with the appellant's solicitors with a view to amicably settling the quantum of damages. In a letter dated 9 November 2005, the respondent's solicitors proposed quantifying the total damages at $923,790. This was not accepted by the appellant and an impasse was reached. On 25 May 2006, the respondent appointed his present solicitors.

5 Despite further exchanges, the parties could not agree on the maximum sum that a District Court could award on the basis of 70% liability. The respondent's position was that the maximum sum ought to be the “District Court limit” as defined in s 2 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), ie,$250,000. On the other hand, the appellant's position was that the maximum amount that could be awarded was 70% of the District Court limit, ie, $175,000. It may be helpful at this juncture to reproduce s 20 of the Act, which reads as follows:

Jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort

20.– (1) A District Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try any action founded on contract or tort where –

1. (a) the debt, demand or damage claimed does not exceed the District Court limit,whether on balance of account or otherwise; or

2. (b) there is no claim for money, and the remedy or relief sought in the action is in respect of a subject-matter the value of which does not exceed the District Court limit.

1. (2) A District Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try any action where the debt or demand claimed consists of a balance not exceeding the District Court limit after a set-off of any debt or demand claimed or recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff, being a set-off admitted by the plaintiff in...