Seow Hwa Chuan v Ong Wah Chuan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Puay Boon
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGDC 140
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No.1680 of 2009, Registrar’s Appeal No HC/RAS 12 of 2016
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 10 June 2016
• Hearing Date: 18 March 2016,29 February 2016,11 February 2016,12 January 2016,31 May 2016,20 October 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Perumal Athitham (M/s Yeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ramesh Appoo (M/s Just Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Costs,Principles,Damages,Interest,Offer to Settle,Appeals,Assessment,Measure of Damages,Personal Injuries Cases,Quantum,Rules in Awarding,Proof of Actual Damage,Evidence,Documentary Evidence,Proof of Contents,Tort,Negligence
• Citation: [2016] SGDC 140

District Judge Tan Puay Boon:

This is an appeal against the awards of damages for various heads of claim, interest and costs which I made after hearing the parties’ appeals against the decision of the Deputy Registrar who assessed the damages in the present suit.

The Plaintiff’s claim

The suit was commenced by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for damages for the injuries he suffered. These were from a road traffic accident involving a collision between the motorcycle he was riding and the pickup driven by the Defendant on 19 June 2006 (the 1st accident).

The Writ was filed on 13 May 2009, and the trial on liability took place on 24 September 2010. On 21 October 2010 the District Judge gave interlocutory judgment with liability apportioned at 90% against the Defendant. Damages were ordered to be assessed, with interest and costs reserved to the Registrar.

The appeal by the Defendant against the judgment (DCA 18/2011) was heard by the High Court on 6 October 2011, when it was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500 (all inclusive).

The Plaintiff’s second accident

After the 1st accident, the Plaintiff was involved in another road traffic accident when riding his motorcycle on 12 November 2007 (the 2nd accident). He commenced a second suit (DC 2134 of 2010) on 30 June 2010 where interlocutory judgment was entered by consent on 19 July 2012 with liability apportioned at 75% against the defendant in that suit. Damages were ordered to be assessed, with interest and costs reserved to the Registrar.

The assessments of damages

The assessments of damages of both suits came before the same Deputy Registrar on 7 August 2014. The second suit was settled and consent judgment was entered on the same day as follows –

BY CONSENT IT IS THIS DAY ADJUDGED that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff the global sum of $30,000-00 for damages inclusive of interest (being $25,000-00 for General Damages and $5,000-00 for Special Damages) plus costs and disbursements to be taxed if not agreed.

The assessment of damages in the present suit commenced immediately afterwards.

After a number of days of hearing, the awards of damages were made by the Deputy Registrar on 6 July 2015 and orders on interest and costs were made on 19 August 2015. The entire list of awards and orders may be found in the Notes of Evidence (NE) of the respective dates.

Both parties appealed against the awards and orders of the Deputy Registrar.

The Defendant’s appeal in DC/RA 86 of 2015 was against the following awards and orders – A. Pain & Suffering – $30,000; B. Cost of Future Medical Care – $2,000; C. Loss of Earning Capacity – $40,000; I. Interest in the general damages at 5.33% per annum from date of Writ to Judgment; J. Interest on the special damages at 2.67% per annum from the date of the Writ to Judgment; K. Costs for the trial on liability and assessment fixed at $20,500 plus GST and reasonable disbursements.

The Plaintiff’s appeal in DC/RA 86 of 2015 was against the same awards and orders, as well as –

D. Pre-trial loss of earnings - $8,800.

The appeal

In Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng David [2013] SGCA 48, a case on the standard of review of a decision made by the Registrar of the Supreme Court on an assessment of damages, the Court of Appeal stated that – 46 To summarise, in an appeal to a judge in chambers against the Registrar’s decision on an assessment of damages: (a) The judge’s discretion is unfettered by the exercise of the Registrar’s discretion below, although due weight should be given to the latter’s decision. (b) The Registrar’s findings of fact based on the oral evidence may only be overturned by the judge if those findings are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence. (c) If the Registrar’s assessment of a witness’ credibility was based on inferences drawn from: (i) the internal consistency in the contents of the witness’ testimony; or (ii) the external consistency between the contents of the witness’ evidence and the extrinsic evidence,

then the judge is in as good a position as the Registrar to make the assessment.

(d) The judge may make his own findings of fact on the admitted documentary and affidavit evidence, and he is entitled to draw the appropriate inferences from this evidence and the Registrar’s notes of hearing. (e) Where the Registrar’s finding of fact is based partly on the oral evidence and partly on affidavit or documentary evidence, the judge may overturn that finding only where there is sufficient evidence to show that, more likely than not, the finding was not warranted on the evidence.

I was of the view that this was also applicable to an appeal against the assessment of damages by a Deputy Registrar of the State Courts to the District Judge. I therefore applied these principles when I decided the parties’ appeals.

I heard the appeals on 20 October 2015 and 12 January 2016, and gave my decision in the appeals against the awards for the various heads of claim on 11 February 2016. I heard submissions on interest and costs on 29 February 2016 and gave my decision on interest on that day. I gave my decision on costs on 18 March 2016, after hearing further submissions on costs.

The awards and orders I made are set out in the table in [37] below, where I have also set out the awards of the Deputy Registrar for the various heads of claim, including those which were not appealed against.

On 31 March 2016, the Defendant filed an appeal against the whole of my decision. There was no cross-appeal by the Plaintiff.

The facts

The following facts were established from the various affidavits of evidence-in-chief (AEIC) and evidence elicited from the witnesses during the assessment of damages.

The employment history and health condition of the Plaintiff before the 1st accident

When the Plaintiff completed Secondary 4, he did not have an O-level certificate. He took a course in Motor Vehicle Mechanics with the Vocational and Industrial Training Board, and obtained a National Trade Certificate Grade 3 in 1983. He worked as a motor mechanic until March 1984, when he was enlisted for National Service. His vocation during his 2-year service, which ended in March 1986, was a driver.

In 1986, the Plaintiff joined Singapore Aircraft Industries (now called ST Aerospace) as a trainee artisan (dealing with aircraft)¹. He was certified as an artisan after 1½ years of training. In mid-1988, the Plaintiff was transferred to Singapore Airlines (SIA). He left SIA in 1992 because he was medically unfit to continue with his job². He did odd jobs, including driving a taxi and working as a driving instructor, before joining KLM Airlines in 1995 as an aircraft mechanic. He was retrenched in late 1996 during the financial crisis, and joined a Japanese company as a technician before leaving to help in his sister’s bridal/wedding business as a wedding coordinator-cum-driver from 1999 to 2004. He also drove a taxi during this period.

The Plaintiff was employed by Singapore Precision Repair and Overhaul Pte Ltd (Singapore Precision) from October 2005. The company has about 70 staff, and “specializes in the repair and overhaul of aircraft and helicopter landing gear, hydraulic components, wheels and brake control system”³. The Plaintiff, an Aircraft Technician II (Grade 5), was in the wheels and brakes section at the time of the 1st accident, and his function was to refurbish or change the spare parts, to render them serviceable. The work required him to bend and squat.

The Plaintiff had a history of problems with his back even before the 1st accident. What was clear was that he had undergone a discectomy in 1991⁴. However, the medical reports and evidence of the doctors appeared to suggest that there might have been other surgeries done on his back. One was a previous laminectomy of his L4/L5 vertebrae⁵. The medical report of 29 June 2014 from Dr Lee Soon Tai (Dr Lee), the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon who was the Defendant’s expert witness, seemed to suggest that the Plaintiff also had spinal surgery to his back for his L3/L4 and L4/L5 vertebrae in 1997 after a fall⁶. While it was not clear if the Plaintiff had told Dr Lee that there was such an operation⁷, he said in cross-examination that it was a small operation⁸. However, the other evidence showed that there was only one surgery to the Plaintiff’s back, and it was done in 1991. Dr Andy Yeo, the Registrar from the Department of Orthopaedics from Changi General Hospital (CGH), who checked through the clinical records, said that there was no record of the injury in 1997⁹.

The Plaintiff later developed right sided sciatica in November 1997 and had recurring symptoms. He was treated with epidural injections in February 1998. He fell in October 1998 while he was at work, and developed neck and back pain. He had another fall in November 1999 while pulling a heavy load, and was admitted to the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Singapore General Hospital¹⁰. The Plaintiff also had acute low back pain and right elbow pain in March and April 2006, respectively, and was seen at the Orthopaedic Outpatient Department of CGH¹¹.

The employment history and medical condition of the Plaintiff after the 1st accident

After the 1st accident took place on 19 June 2006, the Plaintiff was hospitalised for 53 days at CGH before he was transferred on 11 August 2006 to the Ang Mo Kio Hospital where he spent a further 15 days for rehabilitation before being discharged on 26 August 2006. He was then given hospitalisation leave of 1½ years. His employment at Singapore Precision was terminated on medical grounds from 2 July 2007 as he was still not fit to return to work.

While recuperating from his injuries, the Plaintiff took courses in the security industry and employability skills under the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, and obtained related Statements...