Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Woo Bih Li J |
Judgment Date | 14 September 2005 |
Neutral Citation | [2005] SGHC 168 |
Docket Number | Suit No 1491 of 2002 (Registrar's |
Date | 14 September 2005 |
Published date | 14 September 2005 |
Year | 2005 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Vincent John (Andrew Yap and Company) |
Citation | [2005] SGHC 168 |
Defendant Counsel | P E Ashokan (KhattarWong) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Whether subsequent termination of claimant's employment valid consideration in assessing damages for pre-trial loss of earnings and loss of future earnings and earning capacity,Whether potential increase in Goods and Services Tax and upward trend in medical costs valid considerations in assessing award for future medical expenses,Injury to leg not life-threatening and no amputation,Assessment,Whether award for pain, suffering and loss of amenities exceeding that awarded to amputees justified,Damages |
14 September 2005 |
Judgment reserved. |
Woo Bih Li J:
1 The plaintiff is Mei Yue Lan Margaret (“Margaret”). She was working as an accounts clerk with Astra Oil Company Pte Ltd (“Astra”) in February 1999. Astra’s office was located at the 14th floor of Raffles City Tower. On 23 February 1999, Margaret was using the ladies’ toilet on the 14th floor. As she left, she pulled open the door and a metal sheet attached to the bottom of the door fell onto her right leg, cutting her leg sharply. Unfortunately, the consequences of that accident have been very painful and serious as I shall elaborate on later.
2 On 3 April 2001, Margaret commenced the present action against the defendant, Raffles City (Private) Limited (“Raffles City”), in the Subordinate Courts. On 1 November 2002, she obtained an order to transfer the action to the High Court. On 11 April 2003, interlocutory judgment was entered by consent against Raffles City, for, inter alia, 99% of her damages to be assessed. The assessment was conducted in January 2005 by an assistant registrar who gave her decision in May 2005.
3 The award of the assistant registrar was as follows:
(a) General damages
(i) Pain, suffering and loss of amenities $100,000.00
(ii) Loss of earning capacity $ 20,000.00
(iii) Loss of future earnings NIL
(iv) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(v) Future medical expenses $ 91,605.00
(vi) Future transport expenses NIL
Subtotal $211,605.00
(b) Special damages
(i) Pre-trial medical expenses $ 69,904.06
(ii) Pre-trial transport expenses $ 7,821.00
(iii) Pre-trial loss of earnings $ 30,870.64
(iv) Renovation of toilet NIL
(v) Miscellaneous expenses $ 61.30
Subtotal $108,657.00
Grand total $320,262.00
The assistant registrar also ordered Raffles City to pay interest and costs which I need not elaborate on.
4 Each side appealed against certain items awarded by the assistant registrar and I will now deal with each item which was the subject of an appeal or appeals.
Pain, suffering and loss of amenities
5 The assistant registrar awarded $100,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. Each side appealed against this item. Raffles City submitted that $100,000 was too high as a person with an amputated leg receives less than $100,000 and Margaret was no worse than such a case.
6 Raffles City also referred to four cases which were mentioned by the Court of Appeal in the well-known case involving the actress Andrea Heidi de Cruz (TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi
(a) In Toon Chee Meng Eddie v Yeap Chin Hon
(b) In Gunapathy Muniandy v Khoo James
(c) In Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd
(d) The court in Chen Qingrui v Phua Geok Leng
7 Thus, Raffles City suggested an initial sum of $30,000 and then $40,000 or $50,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. On the other hand, Margaret sought an award of at least $145,000 comprising $100,000 for the physical injury and pain, $40,000 for chronic post traumatic stress disorder and $5,000 for osteoporosis.
8 The cases on amputation cited by Raffles City were old cases where the accident was in 1991 or earlier. Furthermore, while the other four cases it referred to in [6] above suggested that the assistant registrar’s award of $100,000 was excessive, it is important to try and understand what Margaret had to go through as a consequence of her injury. I refer to the following evidence, which was largely undisputed, and mostly taken from Margaret’s Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief.
9 After the metal sheet fell on her right foot, Margaret saw blood spurting out of her foot. She called for help. She was carried to the pantry at her office. Blood continued to flow from her foot continuously. Someone called the company doctor who arrived, bandaged her wound and said she needed immediate treatment in a hospital. Accompanied by one of her colleagues, she went to Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”) where she underwent emergency surgery on the same day.
10 Margaret described her physical injury as a deep and traumatic laceration to her right ankle with the following details:
(a) cut tibialis anterior tendon;
(b) cut extensor hallucis longus tendon;
(c) cut extensor digitorium tendons;
(d) cut Dorsalis pedis artery;
(e) cut deep peroneal nerve;
(f) 7cm long V-shaped distally based flap (deep) laceration over the dorsum of the right ankle;
(g) incision scars with keloid formation;
(h) discolouration (blue and black) of the skin at the injured site; and
(i) permanent disability.
11 Below is a table of the medical procedures she underwent:
S/n |
Medical institution |
Dates admitted/ |
procedures and |
1. |
Singapore General Hospital |
23/02/1999 to |
First surgery involving repair of the lacerated tendon, artery and |
2. |
Singapore General Hospital |
18/03/99 to 27/03/1999 |
Treatment of the |
3. |
Gleneagles Hospital |
28/09/1999 to 12/10/1999 |
Further surgery – |
4. |
Singapore General Hospital |
22/01/2000 |
Performed an ankle |
5. |
Anaesthesia & Analgesia |
26/04/2000 |
Performed a right |
6. |
Anaesthesia & Analgesia |
12/05/2000 |
Performed local |
7. |
Anaesthesia & Analgesia |
20/05/2000 |
Trial of TENS |
8. |
Gleneagles Hospital |
18/08/2000 |
Further surgery – |
9. |
Anaesthesia & Analgesia |
24/11/2001 |
Trial Spinal Cord |
10. |
Anaesthesia & Analgesia |
18/12/2001 |
Permanent Spinal Cord |
12 Margaret elaborated that after her first painful surgery at SGH, she received inpatient treatment at SGH from 23 February 1999 to 10 March 1999.
13 She suffered daily with persistent and excruciating pain at her injured foot during her stay in SGH and she was crying everyday. She was given morphine to help her cope with the pain. After her discharge, she spent most of her time in her room. She suffered persistent and excruciating pain daily at the injured foot even when she did not move. When she moved, the pain intensified. The painkillers prescribed by SGH were not effective in reducing the pain at all. She was so afraid to move that she did everything in her room.
14 She was advised by Dr Wong Merng Koon of SGH to go to a clinic near her residence to clean the wound on a daily basis. She went to the Family Clinic, the Medical Health Clinic Pte Ltd and Ghim Mo Clinic & Surgery to clean the wound. She used crutches to slowly move short distances and often stopped to rest. She was in great pain whenever she moved. She suffered severe pain at the injured foot during the cleaning procedure.
15 However, even after proper cleaning of the wound on a daily basis, it became infected and was oozing yellow serum. Upon noting the same, Dr Patrick Kee who cleaned her wound at Ghim Moh Clinic & Surgery, immediately wrote a note to Dr Wong of SGH informing him of the same. When she saw Dr Wong again at SGH on 18 March 1999 for a medical review, she was immediately re-admitted for treatment of the infected wound. She was not discharged on the same day, as Dr Wong wanted the wound to heal before she was discharged. She received inpatient treatment and was ordered not to leave her bed. She was in great pain and cried everyday. She was discharged on 27 March 1999.
16 On 5 April 1999, she returned to SGH for a medical review by Dr Wong. She told Dr Wong that she still suffered persistent and excruciating pain at the injured foot and was unable to sleep due to the pain and the recurrent nightmares of the accident. Thereafter, she went for light therapeutic exercises and ultrasonic and heat therapy sessions about five times a week until September 1999. During those sessions, she continued to suffer persistent and excruciating pain daily at the injured foot.
17 There was no improvement in her physical condition as she was still only able to move short distances and very slowly with crutches. To make matters worse, she began putting on weight. She still had difficulties in falling asleep and had recurring nightmares of the accident. Consequently, she became anxious and temperamental.
18 On 15 September 1999, she saw Dr Chang Wei Chun, an orthopaedic and trauma surgeon of Orthopaedic & Traumatic Surgery at Gleneagles Medical Centre on the recommendation of a friend. Dr Chang did a clinical examination of her injured foot and told her that she had foot...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tan Juay Mui (by his next friend Chew Chwee Kim) v Sher Kuan Hock and another (Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, co-defendant; Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd and another, third parties)
...awarded $50,000 for the amputation of his right leg, below the knee. She also relied on Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd [2005] 4 SLR(R) 740 where the plaintiff suffered severe injury to her right leg and was awarded $100,000 although the leg was not amputated. The plaintiff su......
-
Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P Hotel
...issue of awarding damages in respect of CRPS, but there are at least two such cases: (a) Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd [2005] 4 SLR(R) 740 (“Margaret Mei”), a decision of the High Court; and (b) Khek Ching Ching v SBS Transit Ltd [2010] SGDC 220 (“Khek Ching Ching”), a decis......
-
Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P Hotel
...issue of awarding damages in respect of CRPS, but there are at least two such cases: (a) Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd [2005] 4 SLR(R) 740 (“Margaret Mei”), a decision of the High Court; and (b) Khek Ching Ching v SBS Transit Ltd [2010] SGDC 220 (“Khek Ching Ching”), a decis......
-
Tan Hun Boon v Rui Feng Travel Pte Ltd and another
...to $35,000 for severe chronic pain syndrome. The Plaintiff next refers to the case of Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd [2005] SGHC 168 (“Mei Yue Lan Margaret”) in which $100,000 was awarded for pain and suffering to a victim who sustained a deep and traumatic laceration to her ......
-
Tort Law
...were two decisions on assessment of damages, one of which involved a dependent”s claim. In Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd[2005] 4 SLR 740, the plaintiff, while using a toilet at the defendant”s premises, suffered serious injury when a metal sheet fell onto and cut her leg. Th......