Lu Zhifeng v Chong Ming Chong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kow Keng Siong
• Judgment Date: 05 October 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 218
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 1252 of 2020, District Court Appeal No. 43 of 2021
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 22 October 2021
• Hearing Date: 06 July 2021,13 September 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in person
• Defendant Counsel: Kanthosamy Rajendran (RLC Law Corporation),Samson Woon Wing Thai (Seah Ong & Partners LLP)
• Subject Matter: Evidence,Burden of proof,Defendant's failure to prove defence
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 218

District Judge Kow Keng Siong: Introduction

DC/DC 1252/2020 (“DC 1252”) arose from an accident in which the Defendant’s car (SGY 7817A) collided into the Plaintiff’s car (SLW 7900T) (“the Accident”).

The Accident occurred on 8 September 2019 at or around 3.30pm when the Plaintiff was driving on Marina Link. As the Plaintiff was making a right turn at a cross junction onto Marina Coastal Drive, the Defendant – who was driving from the opposite direction of Marina Link and against the traffic light signal – collided into the front left portion of the Plaintiff’s car.

The Defendant – who did not have a valid driving license at the material time – accepted that the Accident was caused by his own negligence as the Plaintiff had the right of way.¹ In connection with the Accident, the Traffic Police established that the Defendant had committed the offences of dangerous driving under s 64(1) and driving whilst under suspension under s 47(5) of the Road Traffic Act, as well as driving without insurance coverage under s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act.²

Although the Defendant did not dispute his liability in DC 1252,³ he contended that the Plaintiff was precluded from suing him. This is because he had already settled the matter with the Plaintiff at $7,500.00 on 10 September 2019 (“the Settlement”).⁴ The Plaintiff disputed the Settlement.

In the circumstances, the Defendant had the legal burden to make out his defence regarding the Settlement: Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 63 at [31] and [32]. The issue of whether the Settlement was proved was thus the focus of the trial.

Settlement discussions

Based on the evidence tendered at the trial, the following facts were not in dispute: In the early hour of 10 September 2019 (i.e., two days after the Accident), the Plaintiff sent an SMS to the Defendant stating that he was prepared to settle his claims arising from the Accident at $25,000.00 (“the Demand”). According to the Demand, the Plaintiff sought compensation for his medical injuries, medical bills, loss of income and damage to his car.⁵ The Plaintiff and the Defendant met twice later that day. The first meeting was at a coffeeshop near to the Traffic Police Headquarters. At this meeting, Edwin Wang (“Wang”), the Plaintiff’s mechanic, was present.⁶ The second meeting was at the workshop of the Defendant’s mechanic, Koh Kai Siang (“Koh”). Koh and Wang were present during this meeting. At some point in the discussions, the Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to a settlement. After settlement was reached, the Defendant gave Koh $7,500.00 in cash. Koh then made an electronic fund transfer of a sum of $7,500.00 from his own bank account to the Plaintiff’s bank account (“the Payment”). The electronic fund transfer was made towards the settlement agreement.

Issues to be determined

The factual issues that were hotly disputed at the trial concerned the following: What was the agreed settlement sum? According to the Defendant, it was $7,500.00. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that it was $25,000.00. Was the settlement agreement still binding at the time of DC 1252? The Defendant claimed that it was as he had fully paid the settlement sum via Koh’s electronic fund transfer. On the other hand, the Plaintiff contended that the $7,500.00 was only part-payment of the settlement sum, and because the Defendant had failed to pay the balance of that sum, the settlement agreement had been repudiated.

The Defendant’s case

In his Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (“AEIC”), the Defendant stated that Koh had assisted him in the settlement discussions. The Defendant intended to settle everything with the Plaintiff at the discussions. He eventually agreed to pay the Plaintiff “$7,500.00 in full and final settlement of all claims that [might] arise from the accident”. The Plaintiff said that since the Defendant was driving uninsured, he (the Plaintiff) would make a claim against his own insurers for the damage to his car.⁷

Koh gave evidence for the Defendant. According to him, the Defendant went to his workshop on 8 September 2019, informed him that he had been involved in an accident, and sought his help to assist in settling the matter with the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff later brought his car to his workshop on 10 September 2019, Koh told the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the car was a total loss situation and was not worth repairing. Koh also told the Plaintiff that as the Defendant did not have a valid driving license at the material time, the third-party insurers would not be involved. Thereafter, the Plaintiff and Defendant negotiated and reached a settlement at $7,500.00.⁸ According to Koh, Wang was also at his workshop, but he could not recall at which point of the settlement discussions the latter was present.⁹ A few weeks later, the Plaintiff contacted him and wanted some more money to cover the costs of the modifications works on his car. Koh declined to assist. This was because as far as he was concerned, the matter had been settled. Koh suggested to the Plaintiff that he deal with the Defendant directly.¹⁰

The Plaintiff’s case

According to the Plaintiff, during the first meeting at a coffeeshop, Wang had assessed the repair costs for the Plaintiff’s car to be about $25,000.00 to $30,000.00. The Plaintiff was aware that he could not make a claim against the Defendant’s insurers as the latter had driven without a valid license. As the Plaintiff did not intend to make a claim against his own insurers, the Plaintiff told the Defendant that he was prepared to settle the matter at $25,000.00.¹¹

At the second meeting at Koh’s workshop, the Defendant agreed to settle the matter at $25,000.00 but had only $7,500.00 at the material time. The Plaintiff agreed to accept the $7,500.00 as part payment of the settlement sum. As for the balance $17,500.00 (i.e., $25,000.00 minus $7,500.00), the Plaintiff expected the Defendant to make payment after the latter had obtained a refund on his (the Defendant’s) car’s COE.¹²

However, the Defendant failed to make any further payment towards the settlement sum thereafter. This was despite the Plaintiff asking Koh to help recover the balance payment from the Defendant.¹³ In the circumstances, the Plaintiff treated the settlement agreement as repudiated and commenced DC 1252.¹⁴

My decision

After considering the evidence and submissions – I rejected the Defendant’s defence regarding the Settlement. I found that it was more plausible that the matter was settled at $25,000.00 as contended by the Plaintiff. As the Defendant had failed to make full payment of the settlement sum (having paid only $7,500.00), I found that the Plaintiff was entitled to terminate the settlement agreement and to initiate DC 1252. Given that the Defendant did not dispute that that the Accident was caused by his own negligence and that the Plaintiff had suffered injuries as a result, judgement was accordingly entered for the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is dissatisfied with my decision and had appealed.

Plaintiff not precluded from disputing the Settlement

Defendant’s submissions

Before setting out my grounds of decision for rejecting the defence, I wish to address a preliminary point raised by the Defendant – namely that the Plaintiff should be precluded from challenging the Settlement because he had failed to serve a Reply stating this challenge. The Defence submitted that by contending – for the time in his AEIC – that the settlement was reached at $25,000.00 and not $7,500.00, the Plaintiff had taken the Defendant by surprise and had prejudiced him in the conduct of his defence.¹⁵

During the trial, I had rejected these submissions. My reasons are as follows.

Defendant’s allegations deemed denied pursuant to O 18, r 14

The general position is set out in O 18, r 14. It states – Denial by joinder of issue (O.18, r.14) 14.—(1) If there is no reply to a defence, there is an implied joinder of issue on that defence. (2) Subject to paragraph (3)— (a) there is at the close of pleadings an implied joinder of issue on the pleading last served; and (b) a party may in his pleading expressly join issue on the next preceding pleading. (3) There can be no joinder of issue, implied or express, on a statement of claim or counterclaim. (4) A joinder of issue operates as a denial of every material allegation of fact made in the pleading on which there is an implied or express joinder of issue unless, in the case of an express joinder of issue, any such allegation is excepted from the joinder and is stated to be admitted, in which case the express joinder of issue operates as a denial of every other such allegation. [emphasis added]

On a plain reading of O 18, r 14(1), it is unnecessary for the Plaintiff to serve a Reply if he wished only to dispute the Settlement. This is because if the Plaintiff did not serve a Reply, the Defendant’s pleaded case – i.e., (a) that the matter was settled at $7,500.00 and (b) that this settlement agreement barred the Plaintiff from suing him – is deemed to be denied: O 18, r 14(4).

Plaintiff’s challenge to the Defence did not engage O 18, r 8(1)

There is however one exception to the above general position – namely that the Plaintiff must serve a Reply if the circumstances in O 18, r 8(1) of the Rules of Court are engaged: O 18, r 3(1). These would be cases where the Plaintiff is raising issues of facts (a) which if not specifically pleaded, may take the Defendant by surprise or (b) which do not arise out of the Defence.

I found that the Plaintiff’s challenge to the Settlement did not engage O 18, r 8(1): On 14 August 2020 – i.e., about a month after the filing of the Defence – the Plaintiff’s solicitors had already informed the Defendant’s solicitors via a letter that it was challenging the...