People's Insurance Co of Malaya Ltd v Ho Ah Kum and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: M Buttrose J
• Judgment Date: 31 May 1967
• Neutral Citation: [1967] SGFC 12
• Citation: [1967] SGFC 12
• Defendant Counsel: Dennis Murphy (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Tee Seng and Patrick Ong (Abisheganaden & Co)
• Date: 31 May 1967
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No Y19 of 1967
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Raising argument not previously pleaded,Pleadings,Whether driver was driving on order or with permission of insured,Motor vehicle insurance,Civil Procedure,Risk defined,Insurance

This is an appeal from a judgment of T Kulasekaram J in the High Court of Singapore in an action brought by the respondents to recover from the appellants under the provisions of s 8 of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance 1960 the sum of $31,500 and costs being the amount of a judgment and costs obtained by the respondents against Foo Tai Pou in Civil Suit No 1653 of 1961 in the High Court of Singapore.

The claim against Foo Tai Pou was made by the respondents as the administratrices of the estate of Wan Lye Sum deceased for damages for the dependents and for the estate of the said deceased as the result of the negligent driving of the said Foo Tai Pou of motor van SG 5063 on 25 June 1961 which resulted in the death of the deceased.

In the present action the respondents, in para 3 of their statement of claim, pleaded that at the time of the accident the said Foo Tai Pou (hereinafter referred to as `Foo`) was driving the motor van on the order or alternatively with the permission of one Yeo Soo Moh (hereinafter referred to as `Yeo`) to whom a policy of insurance had been issued by the appellants under which policy the appellants agreed to insure Yeo and any other person driving on Yeo`s order or with his permission in respect of any liability at law for compensation costs and expenses which might be incurred by Yeo or any other person driving on Yeo`s order or with his permission in respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of motor van SG 5063.

The appellants in their defence denied that Foo, at the time of the accident, was driving the said motor van on the order of Yeo, because they allege that Yeo had sold the said motor van and had parted with possession of it to Foo before the date of the accident. They did not deny that Foo was at the material time driving with the permission of Yeo and accordingly from the pleadings the appellants did not join issue with the respondents on the latter`s averment that Foo was at the time of the accident driving the motor van with the permission of Yeo.

Nor did the appellants in their defence plead that at the time of the accident the motor van was being used for a purpose other than a use in connection with Yeo`s business so that, there being a condition in the policy of insurance expressly excluding liability in respect of any accident loss damage or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle was being used otherwise than in accordance with the limitations as to use as specified in the policy of insurance, the damages and costs were not a liability covered by...