Teddy, Thomas v Teacly (S) Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Judith Prakash J
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 226
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 33 of 2012 (Registrar’s Appeal No 367 of 2013)
• Published date: 11 November 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 16 January 2014,10 March 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Nagaraja S Maniam, M Ramasamy and Gokul Haridas (M Rama Law Corporation),Andrew John Hanam (Andrew LLC)
• Subject Matter: Damages,Assessment
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 226

Judith Prakash J: Background

This matter came before me as an appeal by the second defendant in the action against the assessment of damages payable to the plaintiff who had been injured in an accident caused by both defendants. The first defendant settled the plaintiff’s claim separately and is not a party to this appeal. I will therefore refer in this judgment to the second defendant simply as “the defendant”.

On 15 November 2010, the plaintiff, Mr Thomas Teddy, was travelling as a passenger in a taxi driven by Mohd Is’hak bin M Noor (“the taxi-driver”) when a lorry belonging to the defendant collided into the rear of the taxi. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the impact he was “jerked forward and then … flung backwards into the seat”. However, he did not feel any pain immediately after the accident. After exchanging particulars with the lorry driver, the taxi-driver continued the journey dropping the plaintiff off at Orchard Parade Hotel. Later that evening, the plaintiff experienced loss of sensation in both his hands and arms.

The plaintiff’s medical history

Prior to the accident, the plaintiff had suffered a stroke on 10 October 2009. He managed to recover from the stroke by December 2009. However, as of March 2010, he began experiencing pain in the neck, weakness in both hands and progressive gait instability. He consulted a neurologist, Dr Tang Kok Foo (“Dr Tang”), on 11 May 2010. Dr Tang carried out an MRI of the plaintiff’s cervical spine. His assessment of the plaintiff’s then medical condition is summarised in a report dated 14 May 2010. In gist, he diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from cervical myelopathy and diabetic neuropathy and recommended surgery to stop the cervical myelopathy from getting worse. He stated:

His other medical problems are:

1. Diabetes mellitus for the past 30 years 2. Diabetic neuropathy (distal symmetrical sensory-motor neuropathy)

Examination revealed poor dexterity in the right upper limb, minimal loss of motor power (grade 4.75/5) and very poor 2 point discrimination. The deep tendon reflexes were absent in the upper and lower limbs except for the biceps jerks. There were no increased reflexes and no ankle clonus (due to the peripheral neuropathy).

MRI brain: no new infarct.

MRI cervical spine: 3 level disc prolapse (C3/C4, C4/C5 and C5/C6) with very severe cord compression at the lower two levels.

He will require surgical decompression of the cervical spinal cord as soon as practicable. …

While this report states that the plaintiff was suffering from disc degeneration at three levels, Dr Tang’s position in his Specialist Medical Report dated 12 November 2012 and under cross-examination, was that he had disc degeneration at four levels (ie, C3/C4, C4/C5, C5/C6 and C6/C7).

The plaintiff approached a neurosurgeon, Dr Premkumar Kandasamy Pillay (“Dr Pillay”), for a second opinion on 7 July 2010. Dr Pillay also ordered an MRI of the plaintiff’s cervical spine to be carried out (“the July 2010 MRI”). On the basis of the MRI findings, Dr Pillay diagnosed the plaintiff with cervical myelo-radiculopathy and also recommended surgery. On 14 July 2010, Dr Pillay performed an “anterior cervical microdisectomy and fusion for C4/5 and C5/6 significant disc protrusions [that were] causing the myelo-radiculopathy” (“the first surgery”). According to the plaintiff, he felt a dramatic improvement in his condition after the first surgery. He claimed that he had completely recovered from the first surgery by October 2010.

Series of events after the accident

The day after the accident, the plaintiff went to see Dr Pillay because he was concerned that the accident might have had an impact on his spine. An MRI of his cervical spine was conducted on the same day (“the November 2010 MRI”). In his MRI report, the consultant radiologist, Dr Gan Yu Unn, stated the following conclusions:

There are fractures of the C4 to C6 vertebral bodies with postoperative changes present.

Posterior central/paracentral disc protrusions at C3/4 to C7/T1 are seen. These result in indentation of the spinal cord. There is associated raised intramedullary spinal cord signal at C4 to C6, possibly due to oedema or myelomalacia.

The plaintiff was scheduled for urgent surgery on 26 November 2010. Dr Pillay carried out “cervical laminectomy, laminoplasty with posterior stabilization implants from C3/4 to C6/7” (“the second surgery”). The plaintiff claimed that he could not feel his hands and that “everything was numb” before the second surgery. According to him, there was little improvement after the surgery. Dr Pillay’s medical report dated 18 March 2011, a few months after the second surgery, estimated that the plaintiff had “a 70% permanent disability”. At the time of the assessment of damages hearing, the plaintiff was wheelchair bound. He gave evidence that in September 2012, “the bottom part” of his legs gave way and that he can now only take about three to four steps at a time.

The plaintiff’s employment history

The plaintiff was 58 years old at the date of the accident. Prior to the accident, he was employed in various different organisations in different capacities. From 1983 onwards he spent a lot of time working in the oil and gas and shipbuilding industries. Among other things, he was a Quality Control Manager assigned first to a shipyard and then to an oil refinery and the managing director of a building company which had a large workforce deployed at several worksites.

In 2007, he set up his own contracting company, Tedjo Engineering Pte Ltd (“Tedjo”). In July 2007, Tedjo landed a contract in connection with the building of a bio-diesel fuel plant in Jurong Island for an Australian company. After this project ended, Tedjo was unable to secure any other contracts and it was wound up in 2009.

The plaintiff gave evidence that about a month after his first surgery (ie, in August 2010), he started marketing and looking for opportunities in the oil and gas industry again. He also produced in evidence a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between himself and a number of other parties for a joint venture project in India, cleaning pipes in the oil and gas industry. The defendant disputed the admissibility of the MOU on the ground that none of the other parties who had signed it, including an individual resident in Singapore, were called to prove its authenticity. The MOU was admitted in evidence on the basis that the failure to call the other parties to give evidence would affect the weight assigned to the MOU but not its admissibility.

According to the plaintiff, his role in the joint venture was to train workers to carry out pipe-cleaning and to provide the specialised equipment that was required for the project. He maintained that the joint venture had fallen through as a result of the accident since he was no longer physically capable of going to the site to train the workers. The MOU was signed on 25 June 2010 (ie, about a month before his first surgery). The plaintiff’s position was that the MOU showed that he had every intention to continue to work after recovering from the first surgery. To that end, he also claimed that on the day of the accident, he was headed to Orchard Parade Hotel because he had an important meeting with the “Managing Director of a petroleum company not in Singapore”. According to him, this was indicative of his intention to resume working after recovering from the first surgery. His evidence was that the work that he did required “a lot of climbing and walking” and that the success of the projects that he undertook was “largely based on close supervision and attention to details”. Since the accident had incapacitated him, he was prevented from working in the oil and gas industry.

The proceedings

The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the taxi-driver and the defendant on 16 April 2011. He claimed damages for, among other things, pain and suffering, medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of pre-trial earnings, loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity. Liability was agreed between the plaintiff, the taxi-driver and the defendant at 10:10:80 respectively. The assessment of damages took place over five days in April and June 2013 before an Assistant Registrar (“the AR”). After the assessment of damages hearing, the plaintiff and the taxi-driver arrived at a settlement between themselves.

The AR delivered judgment on 28 October 2013. She assessed the damages as follows:

General Damages
Pain and suffering	: $60,000
Future medical expenses	: $3,000
Loss of future earnings	: $166,064.16
Special Damages
Medical expenses	: $78,598.81
Pre-trial loss of earning	: $200,660.86
Total : $508,323.83

The defendant has appealed against the awards for pain and suffering, and loss of earnings (ie, pre-trial earnings and future earnings). Decision Below Pain and suffering

One of the most hotly contested issues was whether the plaintiff’s injuries and disabilities were caused by the accident or were pre-existing conditions. The AR found that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the accident because: the plaintiff experienced pain and weakness shortly after the accident although he was not suffering from pain and had good strength in his hands before the accident; she accepted Dr Pillay’s evidence that the plaintiff’s current problems are a direct consequence of the accident; and the November 2010 MRI showed fractures to the C4 to C6 vertebrae and indentations at the C3/4 and C6/7 levels of the plaintiff’s spinal cord.

She referred to the Charlene Chee et al, Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (Academy Publishing, 2010) (“Guidelines”) and noted that the...