Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA |
Judgment Date | 09 June 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGCA 59 |
Published date | 12 June 2021 |
Year | 2021 |
Hearing Date | 19 April 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Vijay Kumar Rai and Jasleen Kaur (Arbiters Inc Law Corporation) |
Citation | [2021] SGCA 59 |
Defendant Counsel | Kuah Boon Theng SC, Yong Kailun Karen and Samantha Oei Jia Hsia (Legal Clinic LLC) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 9 of 2021 |
A little over two centuries since the founding of modern Singapore by the British and slightly over half a century since its establishment as an independent nation state, a profound and momentous change has been made to the Singapore court system. On 2 January 2021, the Appellate Division of the High Court (“the AD”) was established pursuant to the coming into force of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act 40 of 2019) (“SCJA(A)”). This introduced wide-ranging amendments into the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”).
As a result of this, Singapore now has a court which in some respects is akin to an intermediate appellate court. The Court of Appeal remains the apex court whilst the AD is situated between the Court of Appeal on the one hand and the General Division of the High Court (“Gen Div”) on the other. The Gen Div was formerly known as “the High Court of Singapore” and
The reasons for the establishment of the AD have both quantitative as well as qualitative roots, which (as we shall see in a moment) are intertwined and interact to accomplish the wider mission of enhancing the administration of justice in Singapore as well as developing Singapore law in a manner that is indigenously strong yet international in outlook.
From a quantitative perspective, the restructuring of the Singapore court system in the manner just described is both necessary and timely. In particular, the Court of Appeal has experienced an enormous growth in its caseload for both criminal as well as civil matters. For example, in 2013, 314 civil and criminal matters were filed in the Court of Appeal; by 2018 (a mere five years later), the number had increased by 56% to 490. Just as importantly (and from a qualitative perspective), the cases that have come before the Court of Appeal have become increasingly complex. The combination of these factors has stretched the resources of the Court of Appeal. Interim measures such as increasing the number of sitting days for the Court of Appeal, whilst effective in the short term, could not furnish a long-lasting and sustainable solution (see the Second Reading of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill (Bill No 33/2019),
Turning to specific developments proper, under the new regime the AD will hear a portion of the
It bears mention that whilst in the vast majority of cases, once an appeal has been heard by the AD, the AD will serve as the final appellate court, there is nevertheless provision for a
In a broad sense, there are two avenues by which cases on the AD’s docket may be heard by the Court of Appeal. The first is where
The second
It should also be noted that this application in CA/OS 9/2021 (“OS 9”) is the
To say that the case has had a long tail is to put it mildly. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to 31 October 2007 when Ms Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman (“Ms Azlin”) visited the Accident and Emergency Department of the respondent, Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd (“A&E” and “CGH”, respectively), complaining of lower chest pain and shortness of breath. Ms Azlin subsequently visited CGH three more times (specifically, on 15 November 2007, 29 April 2010 and 31 July 2011). On all four occasions, X-rays and other medical procedures revealed an opacity in Ms Azlin’s lungs. It was only on 16 February 2012 that a biopsy of the growth of abnormal tissues (
Ms Azlin commenced legal proceedings against CGH on 20 January 2015 in HC/S 59/2015 (“Suit 59”). Her claim was dismissed by the Judge in
The most relevant findings in the first CA Judgment can be summarised briefly:
As will be seen later, it is of particular relevance to OS 9 that Suit 59 was not bifurcated. This meant that while the Original Appeal focussed on the Judge’s finding that CGH was not liable for the losses occasioned to Ms Azlin,
Ms Azlin passed away on 1 April 2019 from lung cancer, a month after the first CA Judgment was released. After her passing, the second appellant, Mr Azmi bin Abdul Rahman (“Mr Azmi”), her older brother, was added as a party to continue the action in his capacity as executor of her estate (“the Estate”) .
The Judge heard the parties on damages over a 6-day trial in August and September 2020 (“the AOD Hearing”) and released the Judgment on 19 January 2021. She awarded the Estate a sum of $326,620.61. This was broken down as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd
...been well-summarised in a slew of judgments, most recently in Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440 (“the Transfer Judgment”). We lay out only the most relevant facts. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to 31 October 2007 when Ms Az......
-
UJM v UJL
...Division of the High Court (“AD/CA Leave Application”). In Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440 (“Noor Azlin (transfer)”), this court considered the wide-ranging amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (“......
-
Png Hock Leng v AXA Insurance Pte Ltd
...Weiguo v Tendcare Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 884 (refd) Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440 (refd) Ong Wui Teck v AG [2020] 1 SLR 855 (refd) Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1 (refd) Raman Dhir v MCST Plan No......
-
Png Hock Leng v AXA Insurance Pte Ltd
...public resources and the justice system as a whole”. In Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440 (“Noor Azlin”) at [118], the Court of Appeal cautioned again that “allegations of bias against sitting judges in Singapore have the potential to......
-
Civil Procedure
...v UJL [2021] SGCA 117 at [66] and [77]. 16 UJM v UJL [2021] SGCA 117 at [117]. 17 UJM v UJL [2021] SGCA 117 at [82] and [83(d)(i)]. 18 [2021] 2 SLR 440. 19 UJM v UJL [2021] SGCA 117 at [97]–[99]. 20 Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440 at [54]; UJM ......