Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd v Gwee Sok Ai trading as Chuan Bok Wong Trading

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 15 October 1996
• Date: 15 October 1996
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 15 of 1996
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Gwee Sok Ai (trading as Chuan Bok Wong Trading)

Defendant

[1996] SGCA 62

Yong Pung How CJ

,

L P Thean JA

and

M Karthigesu JA

Civil Appeal No 15 of 1996

Court of Appeal

Damages–Assessment–Loss of use of vehicle damaged beyond repair–No loss of profit as plaintiffs had spare vehicles available–Whether damages for loss of use recoverable–Principles for calculating damages for loss of use of vehicle–Damages–Assessment–Vehicle damaged beyond repair–Replacement cost–Whether replacement cost should be based on historical cost of vehicle or cost of new vehicle where no similar second-hand vehicles exist as basis of comparison

On 4 December 1993, two public transport buses owned and operated by the appellant were collided into by a lorry owned by the respondent. As a result, one of the buses (“the double-decker”) was a total loss and beyond economic repair, with the evidence being that it would take 270 days (though only 240 days were claimed in the statement of claim) to replace the double-decker with another. The other, a single-decker air-conditioned bus (“the single-decker”) was repaired at a cost of $870.74 and out of use for 21 days.

As the respondent admitted to full liability, the question related to the assessment of damages. At first instance, the learned assistant registrar awarded the appellant the replacement cost of the double-decker based on the current price of a new double-decker bus depreciated over the spent life from its statutory life of 12 years and awarded damages for the loss of use of the double-decker for 240 days, less deductions for tax and scrap value. In respect of the single-decker, she awarded damages for loss of use for 21 days on the basis of the average daily profit less tax.

On appeal by the respondent, the learned judge in chambers took the view that in relation to the replacement cost of the double-decker, such replacement cost should be based on the historical cost of the double-decker as opposed to the cost of a new double-decker. In relation to the claim for the loss of use of the double-decker, the learned judge was of the view that no substantive award for loss of use would be correct since this would amount to double compensation and therefore awarded nominal damages of $500.

In relation to the claim for the loss of use of the single-decker, the learned judge took the view that the method for measuring the appellant's damages for loss of use should not be via reference to the loss of profit over the period of 21 days, but the “operational cost thrown away on account of it (the single-decker) being detained during the repair period”. Though no evidence was led as to how this amount was to be calculated, the learned judge accepted the suggestion of counsel for the respondent to award half the average profits. The appellant appealed against the learned judge's decision.

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) As the route previously serviced by the single-decker was serviced by a single-decker bus drawn from the pool of stand-by buses the appellant maintained, the damages in relation to the loss of use of the single-decker must have been assessed in some other way than by computing the loss of profit since there was no loss of profit as a result of the loss of use of the single-decker. Instead, where a spare fleet or a stand-by fleet was maintained, it would be proper to measure the loss of use of the damaged vehicle by reference to the costs of maintaining the spare or stand-by vehicle in such a state of readiness so as to be able to replace the damaged vehicle immediately. Accordingly, the compensating sum that should be awarded to the appellant was the daily cost of maintaining the stand-by single-decker bus in a state of readiness multiplied by the number of days taken to repair the damaged single-decker: at [5] to [7], [9] and [12].

(2) Although the method employed by the learned judge in ascertaining the operating cost of the damaged single-decker which was being repaired was rough and ready and may not accurately reflect the costs of maintaining the single-decker bus from the pool in such a state of readiness so as to enable it to replace the damaged single-decker, as there must be finality of proceedings, the assessment would stand as it was much too late for the matter to be sent back to the learned assistant registrar for the appellant to lead evidence so as to secure a more accurate assessment of the damages: at [14].

(3) In relation to assessing the replacement cost of the double-decker, as the principle to be applied in ascertaining the proper measure of damages would be to obtain a fair approximation of the market value of the destroyed chattel at the time and place of destruction, there was no justification for the judge in chambers to have utilised the historical cost of the double-decker as it would have taken a price eight years before the date of the accident and would have the effect of overlooking the fluctuations of currency and the variations in interest rates over the years. The learned judge's award for this head of damages was therefore set aside and the learned assistant registrar's award reinstated: at [15], [20] and [21].

(4) A loss of use through destruction was no different from a loss of use pending repair through damage. In both cases, the owner was deprived of the use of the chattel, in the one case until the destroyed chattel had been replaced and in the other, until the damaged chattel had been repaired. There was therefore no reason why the appellant should not be compensated for the loss of use of the double-decker notwithstanding the fact that it had been damaged beyond economic repair: at [22] and [24].

Birmingham Corporation v Sowsbery [1970] RTR 84 (refd)

Harmonides, The [1903] P 1 (distd)

Hebridean Coast, The [1961] AC 545 (folld)

Owners of Dredger Liesbosch v Owners of Steamship Edison [1933] AC 449 (refd)

Toh Kok Seng (Lee & Lee) for the appellant

Low Tiang Hock (Chor Pee & Co) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

M Karthigesu JA

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The issues arising in this appeal concern the principles to be applied in assessing the damages to be awarded to the owner of commercially operated buses damaged in a road accident for which the wrongdoer is totally liable and has admitted liability.

2 On 4 December 1993 two public transport buses owned and operated by the appellants were collided into by a lorry owned by the respondent. One, a double-decker non-air-conditioned bus, SBS 6898 M (“the double-decker”) was a total loss and beyond economic repair. The evidence was that it would take 270 days (but only 240 days were claimed in the statement of claim) to replace...