Ling Kee Ling and Another v Leow Leng Siong and Others ( No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 09 September 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 233
• Date: 09 September 1994
• Subject Matter: Personal injuries cases,Illegal foreign worker,Damages,s 12 Civil Law Act (Cap 43),Circumstances in which such awards can be made,Dependency claim,Measure of damages,Considerations involving the choice of an appropriate multiplier,Whether damages may be awarded on the basis of Singapore earnings
• Docket Number: Suit No 1048 of 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Chen Chuen Tat (BT Tan & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Benedict Chan (Goh Poh & Pnrs)

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against variations I made to an award of the assistant registrar to the plaintiffs following the death of the deceased, their husband and father. I had varied the award so that

(i) the award of general damages in respect of the dependency claim for the daughter be limited till she reaches 21 years, and

(ii) that the deceased`s income after 11 April 1986 be assessed on the basis that he would have worked in Malaysia.

This action arose out of an road accident in which Yin Ah Joo @ Yin Yew Tien (`the deceased`) died, leaving his widow and a daughter. Interlocutory judgment was entered against the first defendant with damages to be assessed by the Registrar. At the assessment of damages, evidence was led that

(i) the deceased was born on 22 February 1946 and died on 18 December 1986;

(ii) the widow was born on 13 May 1952;

(iii) the daughter was born on 12 February 1975;

(iv) the deceased had been working in Singapore since 1972 with different employers till his death, but he did not hold a work permit throughout the period; and

(v) the last permit he held expired on 11 April 1986, and he continued to work in Singapore after that without a permit.

The assistant registrar awarded the plaintiffs general damages for

(a) pre-trial loss of dependency $55,256.00

(b) post-trial loss of dependency $80,925.00

(c) pre-trial loss of CPF contributions $37,852.58

(d) post-trial loss of CPF contributions $57,095.54

treating the two dependency claims as one. In arriving at the figures the assistant registrar used a multiplier of 14 years, a pre-trial multiplicand of $650 and a post-trial multiplicand of $975. The multiplicands were fixed on the basis that the deceased would have resumed employment legally in Singapore in 1987 in a similar job and earning a similar pay as he did when he was retrenched in 1985, with annual increments of 10%.

The first defendant appealed against the assistant registrar`s award and after I varied it, the plaintiffs appealed against the variations.

The dependency claim of the daughter

The daughter is a dependant under s 12 of the Civil Law Act. Her claim was made under s 12(1) and (2) of the Act prior to the amendments introduced by Act 11 of 1987, which read

(1) Whenever the death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death has been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to an offence under the Penal Code.

(2) Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death has been so caused and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor of the person deceased.

Counsel for the first defendant argued that she should not be awarded damages as a dependant on the same multiplier of 14 years as her mother, and that the damages for her should be computed till she reaches 21, citing . In that case damages for the loss of dependency were awarded to three sons of a deceased person computed to different ages, 22 for the first son and 18 for the other two sons after taking into account their individual circumstances and their late father`s means.

The basis of a dependency claim was explained in . Pollock CB, when considering a claim under s 1 of 9 & 10 Vict c 93 which is similar to s...