Ng Djoni v Miranda Joseph Jude

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng J
• Judgment Date: 23 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 15
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 15
• Defendant Counsel: Kwok-Chern Yew Tee (Foo Kwok LLC)
• Published date: 04 October 2018
• Hearing Date: 19 September 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Wei Yung (Pacific Law Corporation)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 401 of 2017 (Registrar’s Appeal No 211 of 2017)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Date: 23 January 2018
• Subject Matter: Courts and Jurisdiction,Magistrate's Court,Power to transfer proceedings from Magistrate's Court to High Court

Hoo Sheau Peng J:

By Originating Summons No 401 of 2017, Djoni Ng (“the plaintiff”), applied to transfer Magistrate’s Court Suit No 24052 of 2015 (“the MC Suit”) to the High Court under s 54B of the State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed). The transfer application was made on the ground that in the MC Suit, the damages claimed by the plaintiff from Miranda Joseph Jude (“the defendant”) might exceed the jurisdictional limit of the State Courts. On 23 August 2017, the assistant registrar (the “AR”) dismissed the transfer application. The AR’s reasons are set out in Ng Djoni v Miranda Joseph Jude [2017] SGHCR 13 (“the AR’s GD”). On 19 September 2017, I heard and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the AR’s decision. The plaintiff has appealed against my decision. I substantially endorse the AR’s views and set out my reasons here.

Background

On 27 December 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a car accident (“the 2012 Accident”). Almost three years later, on 23 December 2015, the plaintiff commenced the MC Suit against the defendant to seek damages for personal injuries. The writ of summons was renewed twice. Finally, the writ and the statement of claim were served on the defendant on 16 March 2017. As pleaded in the statement of claim, while the plaintiff’s car was stationary at a traffic light junction, the defendant’s van collided into its rear, causing the plaintiff to suffer personal injuries.

On 11 April 2017, the plaintiff filed the transfer application, for a transfer of the MC Suit to the High Court on the ground that the damages would exceed the State Courts’ jurisdiction of $250,000. In support of the transfer application, the plaintiff relied principally on the quantification of his claims for (a) loss of earnings and/or earning capacity and (b) past and future medical expenses. In essence, the plaintiff claimed that the 2012 Accident caused him new neck and back injuries, or aggravated certain existing neck and back injuries, to the extent that his job as a real estate agent has been affected.

An uncommon feature of this case is that the 2012 Accident was but one of many car accidents involving the plaintiff from 2003 to 2016. It was undisputed that prior to the 2012 Accident, the plaintiff had sustained some form of neck and/or back injuries from three accidents that occurred on 21 August 2003, 19 July 2005 and 10 August 2008. Based on the evidence before me, it was unknown whether six other car accidents on 22 December 2004, 25 October 2006, 7 June 2009, 31 October 2011, 3 April 2016 and 11 July 2016 caused or contributed to a worsening of the plaintiff’s injuries. I should add that there was one other accident involving the plaintiff’s car on 28 July 2012. However, the plaintiff claimed that his wife was the driver at the material time. In any case, the plaintiff alleged that the 2012 Accident caused fresh injuries or aggravated pre-existing injuries.

The plaintiff’s position Medical evidence

In this regard, the plaintiff relied heavily on a medical report dated 27 June 2016 by his orthopaedic surgeon, Dr James Lee (“Dr Lee”), of James Lee Orthopaedic Surgery (“Dr Lee’s 2016 Report”). Specifically, two days after the 2012 Accident, the plaintiff consulted Dr Lee. In Dr Lee’s 2016 medical report, he made the following observations about the plaintiff’s condition immediately after the 2012 Accident:

The patient was involved in road traffic accident in 27/12/2012. He was apparently the driver of a vehicle, which was hit by another vehicle in the rear. He had immediate neck and back pain. He was seen at our clinic on 29/12/12 where he was treated. He had also seen his physiotherapist and had treatment done. When seen on 29/12/12, he was noted to have neck and back pain with stiffness. The range of motion of the neck and back was limited due to pain. X rays of the cervical and lumbar spine showed no fractures. He had persistent neck and back pain after the accident. When seen on 29/12/12, he was prescribed Tab Ibuprofen 800 mg bd, Tab Imovane 7.5 mg on and Tab Actifed 1/1 tds (for his cough). He was given a stat injection of IM Voltaren 75 mg.

According to Dr Lee’s 2016 Report, after the 2012 Accident, the plaintiff continued to seek orthopaedic treatment and take regular medication for his persistent neck and back aches.

Further, according to Dr Lee’s 2016 Report, an MRI scan on 19 November 2015 showed that the plaintiff suffered from the following injuries:

MRI of the cervical spine on 19/11/2015 showed multilevel degenerative changes at C3/4, C4/5, C5/6 and C6/7 levels. C3/4 left central disc protrusion contacts the spinal cord and the small left ventral high signal focus my [sic] be cord edema. There is severe C5/6 exit foramina stenosis due to unco vertebral joint hypertrophy.

MRI of the lumbosacral spine on 19/11/2015 showed mild degenerative disc disease at L4/5 and L5/S1. There are left postero-central annular fibrosus fissures at L4/5 and L5/S1. There is mild L5/S1 central disc protrusion with stenosis on the left lateral recess.

[emphasis added]

The plaintiff ascribed the injuries that I have placed in italics in the quote above to the 2012 Accident because they had not been observed in any medical reports or scans prior to the accident. He noted that it was only in Dr Lee’s 2016 Report that his injuries were classified as Grade 3 of the Quebec Task Force Classification, the second most severe grading of whiplash injuries. Dr Lee’s earlier report dated 28 November 2011, presumably relating to injuries pre-dating 2012, did not provide such a classification. Claim for loss of earnings and/or earning capacity

Since the transfer application turned on the plaintiff’s claims for loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, the plaintiff relied on Dr Lee’s 2016 Report as evidence that his persistent neck and back aches since the 2012 Accident had affected his job as a real estate agent. The report concluded as such:

The patient sustained a neck and back contusion. He sustained them in 3separate [sic] accidents, i.e. in 19/7/2005, 10/10/2008 and 27/12/2012. He has persistent neck and backache since the accident. The pain is worse on carrying heavy objects, prolonged standing, and walking. He is unable to carry his young children. His neck and back pain comes on with prolonged standing and walking and he is thus unable to do more showing of his properties. The neck and back pain is also worse when he has to do prolonged driving from point to point. He is thus affected in his job as a housing agent. [emphasis added]

In his affidavits, the plaintiff claimed that his injuries have prevented him from showing big houses to potential clients, viewing properties and carrying his children.

According to the plaintiff, his claims for loss of earnings and/or earning capacity would exceed $200,000 because his income has dropped by about $60,000 annually after the 2012 Accident. In his first affidavit dated 20 March 2017, he stated that he earned an average of about S$181,415.75 per year between 2009 and 2011. Based on Notices of Assessment (“NOAs”) issued by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”), he set out the following table of his income from 2009 to 2015:

Year	Amount
2009	$116,631
2010	$114,713
2011	$208,704
2012	$285,614.23 (est)
2013	$127,836
2014	$129,529
2015	$44,134.36

The plaintiff qualified in affidavits dated 20 March 2017 and 31 May 2017 that his NOA for 2012 had not been finalised, and his NOA for 2013 was being amended. He did not disclose his NOA for 2015 in these two affidavits.

In subsequent affidavits, the plaintiff produced his NOAs for years 2012, 2013 and 2015 which reflected incomes that differed vastly from his original estimates in the table above. In contrast to his earlier claim on affidavit that his “income in 2012 is in excess of S$285,000 … if not also in excess of S$300,000 having re-looked at the income documents”, IRAS’s final assessment stated that he earned $99,839 in 2012. Instead of a drastic fall in income in 2013, the NOA for year 2013 showed that his income increased fourfold to $418,000.

To address the apparent discrepancies, the plaintiff explained that he had estimated the income in earlier affidavits using his commission statements and had computed his commissions as accruing in the years in which the commissions were earned rather than paid. He also explained that a substantial proportion of commissions earned in 2012 and 2013 were only paid in 2013 and 2014 respectively and therefore fell to be assessed by IRAS as income in the next year. Thus, in his reply affidavits dated 29 June 2017 and 12 July 2017, the plaintiff tendered his commission statements from 2007 to 2016 as evidence that he earned less in commission and closed fewer transactions, particularly from 2014 onwards.

The following table, exhibited at [23] of the AR’s GD, sets out the plaintiff’s income from 2007 to 2016 as shown in the NOAs and commission statements:

Year	Income assessed by IRAS in NOAs	Income in Commission Statements
2007	$59,904	$128,830.21
2008	$75,172	$111,757.59
2009	$116,631	$354,645.41
2010	$114,713	$260,869.69
2011	$208,704	$369,382.65
2012	$99,839	$440,150.27
2013	$418,000	$299,485.69
2014	$129,529	$65,055.70
2015	$50,169	$80,372.65
2016	$34,190	$44,996.66

Claim for medical expenses

In terms of his medical expenses, the plaintiff quantified his claim at $182,944. This included past medical expenses of $22,944, costs of $90,000 for prospective surgery for the cervical spine and lumbar spine, as well as a sum of $70,000 for future medical expenses (based on a multiplier of 14 years applied to a multiplicand of $5,000, which is...