Low Kok Tong v Teo Chan Pan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 17 September 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGCA 16
• Date: 17 September 1982
• Subject Matter: s 8 Civil Law Act (Cap 30),Death,Damages,Measure of damages,Application of Gammell v Wilson,No available evidence for assessment,Loss of future earnings
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 57 of 1981
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Cheong Yuen Hee (Chan, Goh & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: R Karuppan Chettiar (Murphy & Dunbar)

Low Eng Seah, a national serviceman, died from injuries he had sustained in an accident between a military truck, in which he was travelling, and a motor lorry. The administrator of his estate made a claim in the High Court for loss of future earnings under s 8 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 30) and relied on the decision of the House of Lords in Gammell v Wilson & Ors [1980] 2 All ER 557; [1981] 1 All ER 578 (HL).

The High Court dismissed the claim. The learned trial judge in his judgment alluded to certain reservations of certain Law Lords on Gammell`s caseand the `immense practical difficulties in giving effect to the decision.` After reviewing some of the evidence, he stated at the end of the judgment as follows:

I found the available evidence for assessment of damages meagre and contradictory. On the evidence I was unable to say what the deceased was going to do or how much he would earn in his normal working lifespan. It was not possible therefore even to begin to make an estimate of the probable future earnings of the deceased. So then, it was impossible to assess a fair compensation for the `lost years`. I therefore dismissed the plaintiff`s claim.

Against that judgment this appeal was brought. We allowed the appeal with costs. We now give our reasons.

As the claim is made under s 8 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 30) it is necessary to set out the relevant parts of that section and they are as follows:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, on the death of any person after the 10 June 1940, all causes of action subsisting against or vested in him shall survive against, or, as the case may be, for the benefit of his estate.

(2) Where a cause of action survives as aforesaid for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person, the damages recoverable for the benefit of the estate of that person -

...

(c) Where the death of that person has been caused by the act or omission which gives rise to the cause of action, shall be calculated without reference to any loss or gain to his estate consequent on his death, except that a sum in respect of funeral expenses may be included.

These provisions are in pari materia with the corresponding provisions of s 1 of the English Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. We would now say something about the interpretation of these provisions by the English courts.

Until 1980 the English courts have held that it was not proper to allow any damages for loss of earnings for the number of years of a person`s life which had been shortened (popularly referred to as `the lost years`) by reason of the serious injury he has sustained. In Oliver v Ashman [1962] 2 QB 210 a boy of 20 months was so seriously injured in a motor accident that he became mentally defective and incapable of any work. His expectation of life was reduced by 30 years. The English Court of Appeal refused to award any damages for the loss of earnings during the `lost years`. They declined to add to any sum which, in effect, might descend to and be shared by such of his next-of-kin who might be living at the time of his death.

The law stood until the decision of the House of Lords in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136. Ralph Henry Pickett had a wife and two children. Up to the age of 51, he was healthy and was working for the railway. In building railway coaches, he came into contact with asbestos dust which was injurious to his health. He contacted mesothelioma which eventually caused in death. At 51 he became ill and died five years later. He could have and would have worked until 65 but for his ill-health and premature death. Pickett sued his employer for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty. He was awarded £14,947.64 damages of which £1,508.88 was the net sum in respect of loss of earnings. The sum was based on a finding that Pickett`s expectation of life had been reduced to one year from the date of trial, and the loss of earnings related to the period of likely survival. Pickett appealed to the Court of Appeal but he died before the appeal was heard. The Court of Appeal did not award any sum beyond the survival period. On appeal by the...