Lua Gek Lang v Ho Juat Jong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kow Keng Siong
• Judgment Date: 24 November 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 276
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DC/DC 2621 of 2020
• Hearing Date: 09 November 2023,21 November 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 276
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Cynthia Lee (Kelvin Chia Partnership)
• Defendant Counsel: Phua Cheng Sye Charles (PKWA Law Practice LLC)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Appeals,Registrar's Appeals,Assessment of damages,Circumstances where it is appropriate not to confirm a deputy registrar's decision,Standard of review of deputy registrar's decision,Quantification of damages,Evidential basis for quantification,Damages,Measure of damages,Personal injuries cases,Pain and suffering,Facial abrasions,Approach to assessing damages for pain and suffering,Wrist fracture,Ankle fracture,Claimant opting for conservative management in the first instance and delaying surgery,Whether claimant has failed to mitigate damages,Precedents,What is the weight of precedents which are unreported or predate the publication of the Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases,Loss of earning capacity,Claimant continuing to work for the same employer after the accident but with reduced work efficiency and ability,Approach to assessing damages for loss of earning capacity,Future medical expenses,Claimant did not take any step towards arranging for medical consultation and surgery after long lapse of time,Whether claimant had intention to go for surgery
• Published date: 01 December 2023

District Judge Kow Keng Siong: Introduction

This judgement arises from an appeal against a Deputy Registrar’s (“DR”) award of damages made in the context of a road accident case.

The accident occurred in June 2018. While driving a van, Mdm Lua Gek Lang (“Appellant”) collided into Mdm Ho Juat Jong (“Respondent”) who was then crossing a road. Interlocutory judgement was entered against the Appellant at 100% with damages to be assessed. A hearing to assess the damages (“AD hearing”) was held in five tranches between 1 November 2021 and 22 December 2022. The DR eventually awarded damages in July 2023.

The Appellant is dissatisfied with the DR’s awards in relation to the following: Pain and suffering for (i) head injury, (ii) facial abrasions, (iii) right wrist fracture, and (iv) right ankle fracture. Loss of amenities. Loss of earning capacity. Future medical expenses. Interests on the General Damages. Costs.

After hearing the parties, I allowed the appeal in part. For easy reference, (a) the DR’s awards, (b) the Appellant’s proposed awards, and (c) my decision are summarised in Annex A.

I will now set out the reasons for my decision.

Head injury – Appeal dismissed DR’s decision

I begin with the appeal against the DR’s award for head injury. The DR awarded $2,000 on the basis that the Respondent had lost some (not total) consciousness and memory in the aftermath of the accident.¹

Appellant’s submissions

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are as follows. First, there should not be any award because the Respondent did not suffer any loss of consciousness after the accident. During cross-examination, she had agreed to being conscious at the material time.² Second, even if the Respondent did suffer loss of consciousness, the DR’s award of $2,000 is “too high”. A fairer award would be $500 based on the precedents.³

My decision There is basis for the award

In my view, the DR is justified to make an award for head injury. The Appellant’s sole basis for submitting that the Respondent did not suffer any loss of consciousness after the accident (see [7(a)] above) is the following testimony by the Respondent: Q: I suggest to you that you were conscious throughout the time and you were never in your own words sleeping at any moment after the accident until you were warded in the hospital. Agree? A: Agree.

[emphasis added]

The Respondent’s answer above should be put in context. It was brief and in response to a compounded question. Save for the above answer, the Respondent had repeatedly maintained throughout the AD hearing that she had drifted between states of consciousness and unconsciousness in the aftermath of the accident.⁴ In the circumstances, the above answer was probably given in a state of confusion due to the manner of cross-examination. Importantly, the Respondent’s consistent evidence that she had suffered from a partial loss of consciousness and memory is supported by Dr Don Koh Thong Siang (“Dr Koh”). Dr Koh had attended to the Respondent at the Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”) soon after the accident. According to Dr Koh, the Respondent was unable to recall clearly what had happened after the accident. This was assessed to be a cause for concern and triggered a medical decision to put her through a CT scan.⁵ DR’s award is fair

I now come to the appeal against the quantum of the DR’s award. I agree with the DR that the Respondent’s loss of consciousness ought to be classified as a minor head injury – as it was relatively brief and did not cause her to suffer any residual disabilities. I find that the Appellant’s recommendation of $500 as damages for the Respondent’s head injury is not “fair compensation”. My reasons are as follows: First, an award of $500 is below with the range of award recommended in the Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (Academy Publishing, 2010) (the “Guidelines”). According to the Guidelines⁶ – The range of award for a minor head injury is $1,000 to $6,000. Where the injured person makes a full recovery within a few weeks, the range of award is $2,000 to $3,000. Second, the Appellant’s proposed award of $500 is also inconsistent with the precedents. Where the loss of consciousness is transient and resolves on its own without treatment, courts have awarded higher damages – At $1,000. See the precedents cited by the Appellant.⁷ I digress to note that these precedents are dated (which means that the awards in these cases ought to be adjusted for inflation) and are unreported (which means that the factual bases and considerations for these awards are not entirely clear). At $1,500. See e.g., Wong Hok Fah v Zheng Xiaohua [2020] SGDC 55 at [54], [55] and [126]; Shawn Tan Shin Han v Yap Choon Lye [2023] SGDC 167 at [10] and [11]. At $2,500. See e.g., Veeramani s/o Krishnan v Singapore Bus Services Ltd & Anor (Suit No. 1724 of 1998). I wish to emphasise that the quantification of damages is to be guided by evidence, precedents, the Guidelines – and ultimately, considerations of what is a “fair compensation” for the injury suffered: Lua Bee Kiang (administrator of the estate of Chew Kong Seng, deceased) v Yeo Chee Siong [2019] 1 SLR 145 at [9]. In the present case, I find that the Appellant has failed to show that the DR’s award of $2,000 is contrary to the Guidelines and precedents. The Appellant has also failed to show that the award is “too high” such that it is objectively not a “fair compensation”.

Accordingly, I dismissed the appeal against the DR’s award for the Respondent’s head injury.

Facial abrasions – Appeal allowed DR’s decision

Next, I turn to the appeal against the DR’s award for the Respondent’s facial abrasions. In making an award of $3,000, the DR had noted that the abrasions – were on a more sensitive and visible area of the body, could be treated with aureomycin cream, had healed completely about one week after the accident, and did not leave any scarring.⁸

Parties’ submissions

The Respondent submitted that the DR’s award is in line with Chen Yeow Leng v Lee Mooi Heng (MC Suit No. 6778 of 1996)⁹ (“Chen Yeow Leng”) and Danial Syafiq bin Mahbob v Amin Juman bin Abdul Jabbar and another [2019] SGHC 282 (“Danial Syafiq”) where $3,000 had similarly been awarded for facial abrasions.¹⁰

The Appellant submitted that the award should be $1,500 instead:¹¹ First, Chen Yeow Leng and Danial Syafiq are not applicable. The claimants in these cases had suffered more serious facial abrasions. In the present case, it is unclear from the Respondent’s medical reports what is the extent of her facial abrasions. Second, an award of $1,500 would be fair as it is the midpoint of the recommended range of awards in the Guidelines for cases involving multiple abrasions.¹²

Multiple abrasions on any part of the body. An award in the higher range is appropriate where the multiple abrasions are large abrasions which result in scars that are not likely to fade away in the long run or despite cosmetic surgery. $500 – $3,000

My decision Relevant factors for quantification

The appeal raises the issue of what factors are relevant for assessing the extent of pain and suffering arising from abrasions – and hence for applying the Guidelines in [13]. In my view, these factors (non-exhaustive) are as follows: What is the extent of the abrasion (e.g., its size and number)? Is the abrasion on a visible or sensitive part of the body? Was the abrasion able to heal by itself, or was treatment needed? If it is the latter, then did medication suffice, or was something more needed? How long did the abrasion take to heal? For completeness, I wish to add that I did not consider scarring from abrasions as one of the relevant factors. This is because scarring is a distinct head of damages: see page 57 of the Guidelines.

DR’s award is excessive

Applying the above considerations to the present case, I agree with the Appellant that the DR’s award of $3,000 is excessive. Apart from the evidence stated in [11] above, there is no other evidence relating to the factors highlighted in [14]. Given the dearth of the relevant evidence in the medical reports, it is incumbent on the Respondent to fill in these evidential gaps. This could easily have been done, e.g., by adducing photographs to show the locations and extent of the facial abrasions. I do not find Chen Yeow Leng and Danial Syafiq to be helpful. Apart from the fact that the claimants had suffered multiple facial abrasions (and facial laceration as well in Chen Yeow Leng), it is unclear what other evidence had been adduced to support the award of $3,000 in these cases. Given the considerations in [15(a)] and [15(b)] above, it would not be possible to assess whether the Respondent’s pain and suffering from her facial abrasions is to the same extent as that suffered by the claimants in Chen Yeow Leng and Danial Syafiq – such that a similar award should be made in her case.

Based simply on the considerations in [11] above, I find that the Respondent’s pain and suffering can be classified as “moderate” as best. The Appellant has suggested an award of $1,500. I find this to be reasonable.

Accordingly, I allowed the appeal and reduced the award for the Respondent’s facial abrasions to $1,500.

Right wrist fracture – Appeal dismissed DR’s decision

I now come to the appeal against the DR’s award for the Respondent’s right wrist fracture. In awarding $18,000 as damages, the DR had found that (a) the Respondent was right-handed, (b) she had suffered slight to moderate disabilities because of the fracture, (c) there was a loss of radial height, pain, discomfort, notable weakness, and loss in range of motion in her right wrist, and (d) the Respondent’s injury fell within the “moderate” and “moderately severe” range of the Guidelines.

According to the...