Neo Seo Thun and Another v Ng Peng Hui

• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 23 May 1975
• Neutral Citation: [1975] SGHC 7
• Citation: [1975] SGHC 7
• Defendant Counsel: James Chen (Laycock & Ong)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohamad bin Abdullah (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Date: 23 May 1975
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No 820 of 1974
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Deduction of pecuniary benefit accruing to dependant from death of deceased,Measure of damages,Claim by personal representatives for benefit of estate and for benefit of dependent of deceased,ss 8 & 12 Civil Law Act (Cap 30, 1970 Ed),Whether deduction should be made for value of property inherited,Damages,Death,Damages to dependant

The two plaintiffs brought this action as the administratrix and co-administrator respectively of the estate of one Ng Joo Chiang deceased for the benefit of his estate and for the benefit of a dependant of the deceased.

The first plaintiff Neo Seo Thun is the widow of the deceased and his only dependant. The second plaintiff Ng Peng Hoe is a son of the deceased who was killed in a traffic accident at Ponggol Road, Singapore on the 20 January 1972. The defendant who was the driver of the motor-car which knocked down and killed the deceased admits liability. Special damages have been agreed between the parties at $1,500. To ascertain the amount of the general damages it has been agreed between the parties that the multiplier should be five years. The dispute is as to the amount which the deceased gave his widow every month and also as to whether on the facts of this case the widow is entitled to any damages at all in respect of her dependency claim.

The deceased was 61 years old when he died. His widow the first plaintiff is now 64 years old. The deceased was a poultry farmer. He had a 99-year lease of a piece of land said to be about one acre in area which he used for farming and on which also stands the family house. The deceased reared hens, ducks and pigs. The widow of the deceased was the only witness who gave evidence. She stated that she had four sons and three daughters and all of them lived with her in the family house on their so-called farm. Some of the children contributed towards the running of the house. According to the widow her husband gave her out of his earnings as a farmer the sum of $150 per month. She stated that this amount was for her personal expenses and that sometimes she used part of this money for household expenses.

As the defendant did not call any witness the evidence of the widow remains unchallenged. In the statement of claim the plaintiffs say that the deceased earned on the average a sum of $200 per month; that he used to give his widow the sum of $150 towards household expenses and that he used to have two meals at home which they have estimated to cost $50 per month. Accordingly the sum claimed on behalf of the widow is only $100 per month. Considering the widow`s evidence in the light of the statement of claim it is clear that the widow`s loss is $100 per month and as the parties have agreed that the multiplier should be five years the widow`s dependency claim amounts to the sum required to produce $100 per month for five years. According to the interest tables a sum of $5,196 invested at 5% per annum will produce $100 per month for five years.

Counsel for the defendant has taken the point that the lease of the land on which the family house stands forms part of the estate of the deceased and has been valued for estate duty purposes at $50,000. He submits that as the widow will get a half share of the estate of the deceased she has derived a benefit of $25,000 as a result of the deceased`s death and that when this benefit is set off against her loss it will be seen that she has in fact gained and not lost anything. Accordingly, counsel submits that she is entitled to nothing for loss of dependency.

In my judgment the submission of counsel for the defendant is without any merit. Insofar as the family house and the...