Mukeswara Muniandy v Muhammad Sufi bin Mohamed Sudar

• Judge: Andre Maniam JC
• Judgment Date: 22 April 2021
• Docket Number: Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 1 of 2021 and Summons No 1006 of 2021
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Mukeswara Muniandy

and

Muhammad Sufi bin Mohamed Sudar

[2021] SGHC 95

Andre Maniam JC

Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 1 of 2021 and Summons No 1006 of 2021

General Division of the High Court

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Appeal to High Court judge in chambers on assessment of damages by State Courts registrar (upheld by district judge in chambers) — Whether judge in chambers should allow further evidence as to matters arising after assessment — Whether Ladd v Marshall conditions satisfied — Whether this was exceptional case justifying fresh evidence as to post-assessment matters

Damages — Assessment — Appeal against assessment of damages — Whether application for appointment of court expert to opine on appellant's medical condition should be allowed on appeal

Held, dismissing the Application and the Appeal:

(1) The rule in Ladd v Marshall[1954] 1 WLR 1489 (“Ladd v Marshall”) prescribed three conditions for adducing fresh evidence on appeal: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial (non-availability); the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it did not need to be decisive (relevance); and the evidence had to be apparently credible, though it did not need to be incontrovertible (credibility): at [3].

(2) The Ladd v Marshall rule was to be applied contextually with cases analysed as lying on a spectrum. Where the appeal was against a judgment after a trial or hearing having the full characteristics of a trial, the rule should generally be applied in its full rigour. However, the court had an unfettered discretion to act as the interests of justice required: at [4] and [5].

(3) Our courts had been strict about the adducing of further evidence on an appeal against an assessment of damages. Since an assessment had the characteristics of a trial, parties should present their entire evidence at the assessment, and the court should not allow further evidence to be freely adduced on appeal: at [6] to [8].

(4) Since damages were assessed on a “once for all” basis, fresh evidence as to post-assessment matters would only be allowed in exceptional cases, such as if a dramatic change of circumstances or events after the trial very materially falsified the expectations on which damages were assessed: at [9] to [16].

(5) In this case, the first condition of the Ladd v Marshall rule (viz, non-availability) was not satisfied as there was no good explanation why the appointment of a court-appointed expert was not sought at an earlier stage in the proceedings: at [18].

(6) The second condition of the Ladd v Marshall rule (viz, relevance) was also not satisfied because no one knew what a court-appointed expert might say about the appellant's condition, and it could not be said that the evidence would have an important influence on the result of the case. Mere differences between the expert's opinion about the appellant's current condition and what had been canvassed at the assessment about the appellant's condition then would not be grounds for varying the assessment or putting in a fresh expert opinion for the appeal: at [19] and [20].

(7) Accordingly, this was not at all an exceptional case justifying fresh evidence as to post-assessment matters, and the Application and the Appeal were dismissed: at [21] and [22].

Case(s) referred to

Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) [2019] 2 SLR 341 (folld)

Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee Ah [2004] 2 SLR(R) 361; [2004] 2 SLR 361 (folld)

Chan Fook Kee v Chan Siew Fong [2001] 2 SLR(R) 143; [2001] 3 SLR 176 (folld)

Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 (refd)

Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam [2003] 3 SLR(R) 666; [2003] 3 SLR 666, HC (folld)

Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392; [2004] 2 SLR 392, CA (folld)

Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666 (refd)

Noble v Owens [2010] 1 WLR 2491 (refd)

Tan Sia Boo v Ong Chiang Kwong [2007] 4 SLR(R) 298; [2007] 4 SLR 298 (folld)

Facts

A State Courts registrar assessed damages payable by the respondent to the appellant. On appeal to a district judge in chambers, the registrar's decision was upheld. The appellant appealed to the High Court (“the Appeal”).

Two days prior to the hearing of the Appeal, the appellant applied for the court to appoint a medical expert to opine on his current medical condition and whether he needed further physiotherapy (“the Application”).

Melissa Kor (Optimus Chambers LLC) for the appellant;

Devendarajah Vivekananda (Comlaw LLC) for the respondent.

22 April 2021

Andre Maniam JC:

Introduction

1 On an appeal against an assessment of damages, should fresh evidence as to matters after the assessment be admitted?

2 This appears to be a recurring issue: it was also in issue in HC/RAS 19/2020, which I heard...