Teo Rong Zhi Saimonn v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2013
• Date: 23 September 2013
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 264 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Teo Rong Zhi Saimonn

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 185

Tay Yong Kwang J

Magistrate's Appeal No 264 of 2012

High Court

Criminal Law—Offences—Statutory offences—Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) —Appellant renting vehicle out to third party—Whether insurance policy covered use of vehicle at time of offence—Whether s 9 Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act applied to satisfy judgments against appellant—Whether offence had been committed under s 3 Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act—Sections 3 and 9 Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed)

The appellant was the husband of the registered owner of a vehicle. He had sole control of the vehicle. He rented the vehicle out to a third party. The vehicle had an insurance policy, which explicitly stated that it did not cover ‘ [u] se for hire or reward’. The appellant was charged under s 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) for permitting another person to use a vehicle when there was not in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks. The appellant was, pursuant to ss 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Act, sentenced to a $600 fine (in default three days' imprisonment) and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. The appellant appealed against his conviction (but not against sentence), arguing that an insurance policy was in force despite the non-coverage of use for hire or reward because the policy had not been cancelled and because s 9 of the Act obliged the insurer to satisfy judgments (in favour of third parties) against the appellant.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The objectives behind the Act were twofold: firstly, to ensure that parties involved in collisions with motorists were adequately compensated; and secondly, to deter motorists from failing to take the necessary steps to ensure that such compensation was available: at [18] .

(2) The statutory language of s 9 (1) of the Act indicated that the subsection only applied to a ‘liability covered by the terms of the policy’, and referred to a policy which an insurer ‘may be entitled to avoid or cancel’. There was nothing to avoid or cancel if the policy did not cover certain prescribed modes of use in the first place. The policy here did not cover the use of the vehicle for hire or reward. The act of renting out a vehicle for monetary consideration came within the ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘hire or reward’. Section 9 (1) would not have applied to render the insurer liable in respect of third party risks. There was therefore no insurance policy in operation within the meaning of s 3 (1) of the Act, and the appellant had thereby committed an offence: at [21] , [22] and [24] .

(3) In any event, the presence of a statutory ameliorative measure in the form of s 9 (1) of the Act did not in any way affect the position under s 3 (1) of the same. A third party would only be able to claim due to statutory intervention and would not be able to do so based solely on the contract between the insurer and the insured. For the purposes of criminal liability, an insured driver could not use the ameliorative effect of s 9 (1) to his advantage; the operation of s 9 (1) had to therefore be disregarded: at [25] and [26] .

Er Kee Jeng v PP [2006] 2 SLR (R) 485; [2006] 2 SLR 485 (folld)

Lim Cheng Wai v PP [1988] 2 SLR (R) 123; [1988] SLR 731 (folld)

PP v Lee Hong Hwee [2004] 1 SLR (R) 39; [2004] 1 SLR 39 (folld)

Stewart Ashley James v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 106; [1996] 3 SLR 426 (folld)

Tan Tok Nam v Pan Global Insurance Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 MLJ 742 (refd)

Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 3 (1) , 9 (1) (consd) ;ss 3, 8, 8 (1) , 9, 9 (3) (c)

Peter Ong Lip Cheng (Peter Ong & Raymond Tan) for the appellant

April Phang (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent

Margaret Joan Ling (Allen & Gledhill LLP) as amicus curiae

.

Tay Yong Kwang J

1 The appellant claimed trial and was convicted on 19 October 2012 by the district judge (‘the DJ’) on the following charge:

You ... are charged that you, between the period 25.3.2011 to 20.5.2011 in Singapore, being the person in-charge of motor car No. SGE 6666 E (now registered as SKB 7012 D), did permit one Lee Han Keat to use the said motor car when there was not in force in relation to the user of the said vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirement of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act, Chapter 189 and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 3 (1) and punishable under Section 3 (2) of the said Act, Chapter 189.

The DJ sentenced the appellant to a $600 fine (in default three days' imprisonment) and 12 months' disqualification from the date of conviction from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles. The fine was paid. The appellant appealed against conviction but not against the sentence imposed.

2 During the appeal, in the course of arguments, I amended the charge to ‘when there was not in force in relation to the use of the said vehicle ...’ (instead of ‘user’). This was to accord with the statutory language. There were no objections to this amendment.

3 Idismissed the appeal against conviction. I now set out the reasons for my decision.

Facts

4 In early 2011, the appellant purchased vehicle registration number SGE 6666 E (‘the Registration Number’). The appellant then purchased a Toyota Corona (‘the Vehicle’) for about $3,000 and registered it in the name of his wife on 5 March 2011 in order to benefit from...