Thenmoli d/o Periasamy v Liew Yee Cheong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 116
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 15 March 2013
• Year: 2001
• Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel Goh (Goh Choon Wah & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar & K Rajendran (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 116

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

1. This matter came on as an appeal against some orders on damages. The damages were assessed following the death of Krishnan A/L Marriappan in a road accident on 11 May 1999. The damages were assessed by an Assistant Registrar on 24 February 2001.

2. The deceased who was born on 23 May 1961 was 38 years old when he died on 11 May 1999. He was survived by his widow the plaintiff and their two daughters, Thevishree and Dharshaini. The plaintiff is working as a staff nurse and was 34 years old at the time of the assessment. Thevishree the elder daughter was 10 years old at that time and the younger daughter Dharshaini was 8 years old. The elder child who is afflicted with cerebral palsy has poor motor skills, refractory epilepsy and severe mental retardation.

3. The awards appealed against were for the loss of dependency of the plaintiff and the children. The awards were split into two categories for pre-trial and post-trial loss of dependency.

4. The damages assessed by the Assistant Registrar were

Pre-trial loss

As the parties agreed that the pre-trial period of loss was 21 months, the Assistant Registrar only set the multiplicands.

Plaintiff - $200 x 21 months

Elder daughter - $1000 x 21 months

Younger daughter - $300 x 21 months

and

Post-trial loss

For the post-trial loss, the Assistant Registrar determined the multiplicands which were raised to take into account future earnings and needs, as well as the multipliers.

Plaintiff - $400 x 8 years

Elder daughter - $1200 x 16 years

Younger daughter - $500 x 10 years

5. The Assistant Registrar found that the joint monthly income of the plaintiff and the deceased was $3,760. The figure must have been derived from the plaintiffs evidence that the deceaseds gross monthly salary at the time of his death was about $1,760 and that her own gross monthly salary was about $2,000. She also stated that they each contributed about 80% of their salaries to the family finances.

6. It was common ground that the elder daughter will always need financial support because of her physical and mental disabilities whereas the younger daughter will be dependent up to the time she is able to seek support herself financially.

7. By placing a multiplier of 16 years on the award to the elder daughter, the Assistant Registrar was fixing the deceaseds lost working period at 16 years. The figure was on the high end of the range as the deceased was 38 years old when he died, and counsel for the plaintiff was...