Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeWoo Bih Li J
Judgment Date14 September 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] SGHC 168
Docket NumberSuit No 1491 of 2002 (Registrar's
Date14 September 2005
Published date14 September 2005
Year2005
Plaintiff CounselVincent John (Andrew Yap and Company)
Citation[2005] SGHC 168
Defendant CounselP E Ashokan (KhattarWong)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether 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 [2004] 3 SLR 543 (“Andrea de Cruz’s case”)). Raffles City submitted that:

(a) In Toon Chee Meng Eddie v Yeap Chin Hon [1993] 2 SLR 536, a road accident left a seven-year-old boy with irreparable brain damage, paralysis on the right side and only a slim chance of being able to speak again. He was awarded $160,000 in general damages.

(b) In Gunapathy Muniandy v Khoo James [2001] SGHC 165, the plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in general damages for a condition that was much more severe than Margaret’s condition. The plaintiff in Gunapathy suffered such serious brain damage that, among other things, she walks with a grotesque gait, uses a wheelchair which she cannot push with her own hands and speaks by uttering as though she was born with a birth defect like cerebral palsy. She is crippled by severe dysphasia and right-sided severe hemiparesis and needs to be permanently cared for because her deficits are permanent. She is also emotionally insecure in the extreme.

(c) In Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 134, the 26-year-old plaintiff, although mentally active and alert after the accident, suffered paralysis to her lower limbs, loss of sexual function, bladder and bowel dysfunction. She was awarded $130,000 in damages for pain and suffering.

(d) The court in Chen Qingrui v Phua Geok Leng [2001] SGHC 64 awarded the plaintiff $206,000 in general damages for injuries that left her blind, bound to a wheelchair and unable to speak.

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/
Discharged

procedures and
treatments

1.

Singapore General Hospital

23/02/1999 to
10/03/1999

First surgery involving repair of the lacerated tendon, artery and
nerve

2.

Singapore General Hospital

18/03/99 to

27/03/1999

Treatment of the
infected oozing wound
at injured site

3.

Gleneagles Hospital

28/09/1999 to

12/10/1999

Further surgery –
repair of re-ruptured
tibialis anterior, etc

4.

Singapore General Hospital

22/01/2000

Performed an ankle
block

5.

Anaesthesia & Analgesia
Pain Management Centre

26/04/2000

Performed a right
lumbar sympathetic
with absolute alcohol

6.

Anaesthesia & Analgesia
Pain Management Centre

12/05/2000

Performed local
anaesthetic and steroid
injection on neuroma

7.

Anaesthesia & Analgesia
Pain Management Centre

20/05/2000

Trial of TENS
(Transcutaneous Electric Nerve
Stimulation)

8.

Gleneagles Hospital

18/08/2000

Further surgery –
exploration and
excision of traumatic
neuroma from the scar

9.

Anaesthesia & Analgesia
Pain Management Centre

24/11/2001

Trial Spinal Cord
Stimulator implanted
into body

10.

Anaesthesia & Analgesia
Pain Management Centre

18/12/2001

Permanent Spinal Cord
Stimulator implanted
into body

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
18 cases
  • 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)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 May 2012
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 14 July 2016
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 14 July 2016
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 July 2017
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT