Teo Seng Kiat v Goh Hwa Teck

• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 202
• Plaintiff Counsel: Florence Koh and Joshua Lim (Engelin Teh & Partners)
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 202
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Ramasamy Chettiar (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Pre-trial and future loss of earnings distinguished from loss of earning capacity,Damages,Assessment of damages,Assessment,Role of appellate judge,Appeal from Registrar to judge in chambers,Interlocutory judgment,Measure of damages,Multiplier and multiplicand to be used,Probability of Malaysian working in Singapore indefinitely,Personal injuries cases

injuries - Interlocutory judgment - Assessment of Damages - Pre-trial and future loss of earnings - Loss of earning capacity - Multiplier and multiplicand to be used - Whether a Malaysian could work in Singapore indefinitely.

Facts

On 12 March 1998, the plaintiff was riding his motor-cycle along Sims Avenue. There was a collision between the motor-cycle and a motor van driven by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered injuries. He then issued a writ seeking damages. The defendant did not deny liability. Interlocutory judgment was entered by consent. Damages were then assessed by in the aggregate amount of $329,788. Out of that amount, the court below awarded $16,500.42 for pre-trial loss of earnings, $183,600 for loss of future earnings and $20,000 for loss of earning capacity. The defendant appealed.

Held

, varied the amount of damages for pre-trial and future loss of earnings to a global sum of $120,000 and no award for loss of earning capacity

(1) In this case, the loss of earnings was in respect of past and prospective earnings and there can be no additional claim for loss of earning capacity. The plaintiff in this case was working before the accident and returned to work after the accident and the loss of earnings was known and assessable. Accordingly, he was not entitled to additional general damages for handicap in the future as loss of earning capacity (see 9).

(2) In view of the medical evidence, there was sufficient objective basis to conclude that the plaintiff’s earning capacity, as in loss of future earnings, was indeed diminished. The evidence adduced, however, did not support a drastic loss of 60% as asserted by the plaintiff. He magnified it to maximize his claim for damages. The defendant’s counsel conceded that while the plaintiff suffered "a mild disability", it was not, however, so minimal to apply the de minimus doctine. The fair and reasonable loss was about 25% (see 11).

(3) As the plaintiff was only 28 years old, the court determined a multiplier of 18 years. This accorded with the current trend in relation to a healthy young man (see 12).

(4) It was contended that as the plaintiff was a Malaysian he could not work in Singapore indefinitely. In this regard, the court noted that the plaintiff was not an unskilled labourer confined to work at a construction site. He had acquired a specialised skill for which there would always be a need in Singapore. Additionally, his employer could not find an equally skilled replacement during his absence. The probabilities were that Singapore would hold out a job for him (see 13).

(5) Based on the objective income tax returns of the plaintiff, the court accepted the plaintiff's income as $2,100 per month. In keeping with an estimate of 25% loss of ability, the court decided on an estimated monthly loss of $500. That was the amount the court used in calculating his past and future loss of earnings after he returned to work. The court was of the view that that was the most reasonable basis in the special circumstances of this case. Based on 22 months of pre-assessment loss of earnings at $500 per month amounting to $11,000 and prospective loss of earnings at $500 per month x 18 years x 12 months amounting to $108,000, the court arrived at a total of $119,000. This figure was then rounded off to $120,000 (see 14-15).

Case(s) referred to

Chang

Ah Lek v Lim Ah Koon [1999] 1 SLR 82 (refd)
Davis v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1942] AC 601 (refd)
Flint v Lovell, [1935] 1 KB 354 (refd)
Low Swee Tong v Liew Machinery (Pte) Ltd [1993] 3 SLR 89 (refd)
Moeliker v Reyrolle & Co Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 132 (refd)
Pritchard v Cobden [1987] 2 WLR 627 (refd)
Teo Sing Keng v Sim Ban Kiat [1994] 1 SLR 634 (refd)
Wee Sia Tian v Long Thik Boon [1996] 3 SLR 513 (folld)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The decision

1. On 12 March 1998, at about 5 pm the plaintiff was riding his motor-cycle along Sims Avenue. There was a collision between the motor-cycle and a motor van driven by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered injuries. He then issued a writ seeking damages. The defendant did not deny liability. Interlocutory judgment was entered by consent. Damages remained to be assessed by the Registrar.

2. Assessment of damages was done by Ms Tan Wen Shan AR. She awarded general damages in the aggregate amount of $329,788. The breakdown was as follows :

1. General damages $329,000.00

(a) fracture of clavicle $ 8,000.00

(b) fracture of scapula $ 6,000.00

(c) fracture of ribs $ 8,000.00

(d) reduced sense of smell $ 10,000.00

(e) scarring and abrasions $ 3,000.00

(f) head injuries $ 90,000.00

(g) loss of future earnings $183,600.00

(h) loss of earning capacity $ 20,000.00

(i) cost of future medical cares $ 1,188.00

3. Then there were special damages. They were as follows :

(a) Medical expenses (agreed) $ 7,113.91

(b) Pre-trial transport (agreed) $ 150.00

(c) Pre-trial loss of earnings
from 12 March 1998 to
6 August 1998 $ 8,771.78

(d) Pre-trial eanrings
from 7 August 1998 to
28 December 1999 $ 16,500.42

(e) Taxi fare to and from work
@ $15 per day from 7 August
1998 to 21 May 1999 $ 4,290.00

4. The defendant appealed against the...