Koh Soon Pheng v Tan Kah Eng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2003
• Date: 14 May 2003
• Docket Number: Suit No 419 of 2001 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Koh Soon Pheng

Plaintiff

and

Tan Kah Eng

Defendant

[2003] SGHC 112

Judith Prakash J

Suit No 419 of 2001 (Registrar's Appeal No 45 of 2003)

High Court

Damages–Measure of damages–Personal injuries cases–Loss of future earnings–Whether award of loss of earning capacity more appropriate than award of loss of earnings–Damages–Measure of damages–Personal injuries cases–Loss of pre-trial earnings–Quantum–Legal Profession–Duties–Court–Citation of authorities by counsel–Authorities cited must reflect updated state of law at time of citation

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a road traffic accident. Interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendant for 90% of the damages to be assessed. The assistant registrar awarded to the plaintiff, inter alia,$73,495.75 for pre-trial loss of earnings and $180,000 for loss of earning capacity. The loss of earnings was calculated by taking the average of the plaintiff's total earnings for the five years preceding the accident.

The plaintiff appealed against the award of pre-trial loss of earnings because his income had been on the increase and it would have continued to increase but for the accident. He also appealed that he should have received an award on the ground of loss of future earnings and not on the ground of loss of earning capacity.

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) Taking the average of the total earnings over the five years prior to the accident was not the correct method of calculating the plaintiff's loss of earnings. To achieve a more accurate picture of the earning potential of the plaintiff's business, the better method was to discard the highest and lowest earnings figures and take the average of the remaining earnings figures: at [8] and [12].

(2) As there was a reasonable prospect that the plaintiff would be able to improve his business even further, an award of loss of earning capacity, rather than loss of earnings, was proper: at [18] to [19].

[Observation: Counsel has a duty to place before the court all matters relevant to the court's decision and to ensure that all authorities that they cite represent the current state of the law as at the date of citation: at [22].]

George v Pinnock [1973] 1 WLR 118 (folld)

Povey v W E & E Jackson [1970] 1 WLR 969; [1970] 2 All ER 495 (not folld)

Smith v Manchester Corporation (1974) 17 KIR 1 (folld)

Monoj Kumar Roy (Roy & Partners) for the plaintiff

Sivakolunthu (M Dass & Co) (briefed) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Judith Prakash J

1 The plaintiff was injured in a road traffic accident that took place on 17 June 2000. His injuries were serious. Both his wrists were fractured as were his left clavicle, right humerus and one rib. There were deep lacerations and abrasions in his right shin and right forearm. His foot was also injured but not fractured. He suffered from concussion.

2 On 29 June 2001, interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendant for 90% of the damages to be assessed. The assessment took place before the assistant registrar in January this year and the plaintiff was awarded the following:

(1)	GENERAL DAMAGES	$
	A.	Pain and suffering	108,000.00
	B.	Cost of future surgery	25,500.00
	C.	Loss of Earning Capacity	180,000.00
(2)	SPECIAL DAMAGES
	A.	Pre-Trial loss of earnings	73,495.75
	B.	Expenses	21,416.70

The plaintiff was not satisfied with the award in respect of his pre-trial loss of earnings. He also considered that he should have received an award on the ground of loss of future earnings and not on the ground of loss of earning capacity. Hence this appeal.

Background

3 At the time of the assessment, the plaintiff was about 42 years old. He was the owner of a motorcycle workshop called “Perfection Motorcycle” which had been in business for about ten years. The main business of the workshop was to repair large motorcycles having an engine capacity of between 400 cc and 1,200 cc. The plaintiff is a skilled motorcycle repairer and most of the time was the only worker in the business. At times he had help from his father, a retired mechanic, and also from a younger general worker.

4 The plaintiff explained that the motorcycles he repaired were large and heavy and the repair work involved a great deal of physical effort. The plaintiff used to carry the motorcycles up to a ramp for servicing and repair. Since the accident, he had found it difficult to carry the motorcycles in the same way as previously. He also had difficulty repairing and servicing them as the nuts and bolts in the engine were located in tight corners and in awkward positions. The plaintiff said that he no longer had the strength to twist and turn the screws and bolts and to apply the proper pressure on the plates and panels of the motorcycles and their engines.

Loss of pre-trial earnings

5 The total sum of $73,495.75 which the assistant registrar awarded as loss of pre-trial earnings was made up as follows:

(a) for the period from mid...