Lee Wee Hiong & Another (administrators of the estate of Lee Liak Meng (deceased)) and Others v Koh Ah Sai Victor and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How J
• Judgment Date: 13 November 1989
• Neutral Citation: [1989] SGHC 96
• Date: 13 November 1989
• Subject Matter: General damages of injured party,Personal injuries cases,Damages,Measure of damages,CPF savings,Loss of life,Whether CPF contributions of deceased should he live should be included,Estate claiming loss of earnings,ss 8, 9 & 12 Civil Law Act (Cap 43),Dependency claims
• Docket Number: Suit No 164 of 1983
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Leong Wai Yin (Leong & Gay),S Vellupillai (Danaldson & Burkinshaw),Teng Chieh Schen (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar (Murphy & Dunbar)

Cur Adv Vult

On 31 August 1981 a motor car driven by the first defendant along Braddell Road towards Thomson Road mounted the road divider and ran into and knocked down Lee Liak Meng (the deceased) and the second and third plaintiffs who were all standing on the divider, waiting to cross the road. At the time, the first defendant was trying to overtake another motor car driven by Siau Kee Min, the second defendant, which was itself moving out from its lane to avoid a road sweeping vehicle driven by a servant or agent of the government of the Republic of Singapore. Arising from the accident, Tan Sor Joo, the widow of the deceased, and her brother Tan Lee Heng, as administrators of the estate of the deceased, together with the second and third plaintiffs brought an action against the first defendant for damages. The administrators as the first plaintiffs claimed damages for the estate of the deceased and also for the benefit of the dependants of the deceased. The second and third plaintiffs claimed damages for personal injuries and consequential loss.

The first defendant joined Siau Kee Min as a third party, claiming an indemnity or a contribution against the claims of the plaintiffs. By an order of court, Siau Kee Min and the Attorney General were joined as the second and third defendants. Tan Sor Joo, the widow, died on 19 June 1983 and, by another order of court, her son Lee Wee Hiong, who had succeeded her as the administrator of the estate of the deceased, was substituted as a plaintiff in this action in her place.

Before the hearing commenced, liability was admitted by the first defendant as to 65% and by the second defendant as to 35%, and the action against the Attorney General was dismissed by consent, with no order as to costs. In the course of the hearing, the parties also agreed on a multiplier of 10 to be applied in determining lost years` earnings, and on the following amounts of damages:

(a) $7,000 for loss of expectation of life;

(b) $5,000 for funeral expenses;

(c) $750 for cost of letters of administration;

(d) $3,000 general damages and $100 special damages for the second plaintiff;

(e) $8,200 special damages for the third plaintiff.

At the date of his death, the deceased was 46 years of age and was in good health. He had worked for bus companies since 1955, when he was about 19 years of age. His last employer was Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd (SBS) whose senior personnel officer was able to produce the records of his employment with SBS from 1973 and to give evidence on them. As a ticket inspector in 1975, his earnings had been $345 per month. He had risen to be a chief ticket inspector in 1978 with earnings of $660 per month, and at the date of his death he was earning a gross salary of $1,020.43 per month from which his take-home amount was $796.43 per month. He was entitled to the one month annual wage supplement, or 13th month salary, common in Singapore employment. If he were alive at the date of the trial, he would have got beyond the Grade I salary range ($550-1,300) into the Grade II salary range ($700-1,600) for a chief ticket inspector. Beyond this, there would be the Grade III salary range ($1,000-1,800), but for this he would have had to be promoted to the rank of assistant superintendent. There might also have been other earnings if he had lived; for example, in 1986, 1987 and 1988 he would have been entitled, like other employees, to a `productivity bonus`, of the equivalent in his case of five and a half days pay or about $300 in 1986, 11 days pay or about $600 in 1987 and 161/2 days` pay or about $900 in 1988. He could have continued employment with SBS until the normal retirement age of 65.

Estate`s claim

The cause of action having arisen in 1981, the claim for the estate of the deceased was made under s 8 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) (the Act) before the coming into force of the 1987 amendments. In assessing the damages to be awarded, the agreement on a multiplier of 10 reduces the problem of determining the loss of future earnings during the `lost years` to a narrower problem of determining the multiplicand. This is nevertheless still a guess at what the average net earnings should be over the relevant period of years, if he had lived, and by its very nature does not readily allow itself to be an exercise in mathematical precision, including possibly separate calculations for different periods of his working life. Neither need it be an attempt at arriving at average or median figures through several ranges of possibilities. What is needed is a fair and reasonable assessment of what the net future earnings might be, bearing in mind that earnings are subject to all the vagaries of life. In this case, having considered the usual contingencies and speculative elements, a net income per year of $19,000 would be fair, after adding the employer`s Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions and after making allowances and provisions for income tax. Applying the agreed multiplier of ten years gives us a figure of $190,000.

From this estimate of the loss of earnings during the lost years, there should be deducted the amount which the deceased would have spent exclusively for his own living and other expenses, as these would be expenses which would be saved by his death. In Chan Heng Wah v Peh Thiam Choh [1988] 1 MLJ 74 the Court of Appeal reviewed a number of leading authorities on the subject and considered the factors which might be taken into account in determining what the available surplus might be after the deduction of the deceased`s living expenses. In particular, it considered the important factor in the Singapore context of the existence of the scheme of enforced savings provided under the Central Provident Fund Act, and came to the conclusion that the available surplus in that case should be 40% of the net prospective earnings. In my view, while each case must necessarily be decided on its own facts, there appears to be merit in using 40% as a conventional figure to follow in Singapore, unless there is persuasive evidence in a particular case that this would not be appropriate. In the present case, this would also appear to result in a fair and reasonable assessment of the available surplus. Accordingly, we would derive from it an...