Ong Tean Hoe v Hong Kong Industrial Company Private Limited

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 10 October 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 303
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 303
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: R Karuppan Chettiar and Fabian Jee Soo Chen [Karuppan Chettiar & Partners]
• Defendant Counsel: James Yu and Dilip Kumar [Yu & Co]
• Published date: 18 March 2013

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. This was an appeal by the defendants against the quantification of damages by the assistant registrar Mr. Kwek Mean Luck on 7 August 2001. I dismissed the appeal as well as the plaintiff’s cross-appeal on 11 September 2001. The defendants now appeal against my decision. Liability was not in dispute and the appeal concerned the issue of damages only. The defendants employed the plaintiff as a machine operator on 18 April 1995. On 12 April 2000 the plaintiff’s hands were crushed and both hands were subsequently amputated at the wrist. The plaintiff was 51 years old at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly salary of about $1,300. The defendants consented to judgment in respect of liability. There was no question of contributory negligence. The assistant registrar awarded a sum of $729,659.10 in damages made up as follows:

"Special Damages
1. Pre-trial Loss of Earnings	$ 22,630.00
	($ 6,500.00)
	$ 16,130.00
2. Pre-trial Cost of Mechanical hands	$ 50,000.00
3. Pre-trial Cost of Nursing care	$ 12,565.00
4. Pre-trial Medical and Transport Expenses	$ 1,164.00
	$ 79,859.10
General Damages
1. Loss of both hands (pain and sufferings)
$65,000 x 2 = $130,000	$130,000.00
2. Post Traumatic Depression	$ 20,000.00
3. Loss of future earnings
$1,600/mth x 12 x 4 = $76,800	$ 76,800.00
4. Future cost of mechanical hands
$50,000 x 4 = $200,000	$200,000.00
i.e. Age 52 (15 years) replacement every 3 years
5. Gloves and Batteries	$ 60,000.00
6. Future Cost of Nursing	$153,000.00
7. Future Transportation and Medical Expenses	$ 10,000.00
	$649,800.00
Total of Special Damages and General Damages	$729,659.10"

2. I think that it will be useful to state the basic principles in the hearing of appeals of cases concerning the quantification of damages. Such cases invariably require the decision maker to exercise his discretion in selecting the appropriate amount of award. No two decision makers can be expected to exercise their discretion in identically the same way or arrive at an identical award. Therefore, one can always expect awards to appear higher or lower as the case may be in comparison and, furthermore, very rarely would the facts themselves be identical or even close. A judge may award a sum of $35,000 for the loss of a hand to a fifty year old but he may award $50,000 to a 15 year old for a similar injury. Where facts change so would the exercise of his discretion. Another judge may consider the difference to be closer to $10,000 rather than $15,000. The quantification of damages for personal injury is not a scientific exercise and because of the varying facts as well as the strong element of discretion, often appears to be an arbitrary exercise. No one can say at which point money will truly compensate a person for the agony of injury and physical loss. It is impossible. One may debate without end as to whether the loss of a right arm deserves greater compensation than the loss of right foot, but it is not possible to come to any objective conclusion. There are people who may say that they would rather lose their right arm than to lose their foot; and an equal number who would think otherwise. So, in reaching a figure to award, the decision maker ought to avoid the extremes. On the one hand, the award must not be so low as to belittle the suffering of the injured and on the other hand, it must not be a largesse that deeply impoverishes and punishes the tort-feasor or his insurer. Hence, the decision maker must first decide whether the item claimed is one that is recognised at law. Then he has to decide what would be a reasonable band of award for the said item (such as the pain and suffering for the loss of an arm). Finally, he has to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and decide what is the appropriate award to be made. In doing so, he will find it helpful to take into account similar awards but with the caution that awards from other jurisdictions may not be ideal examples because the social and economic factors may differ substantially.

3. When discretion is exercised in the manner described above, it ought not as a general rule, be disturbed, otherwise it will only encourage parties to appeal merely to nourish a hope that...