Wee Sia Tian v Long Thik Boon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Judith Prakash J
• Judgment Date: 03 July 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 132
• Docket Number: Suit No 1833 of 1994 (R/A 65 of 1996)
• Date: 03 July 1996
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jayabalan and Adrian Heng (Cooma Lau & Loh)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 132
• Defendant Counsel: Benedict Chan (Goh Poh & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Loss of future earnings,Need to corroborate plaintiff's oral assertions,Measure of damages,Personal injuries cases,Duty of plaintiff to mitigate loss,Pre-trial loss of earnings,Evidence of earnings,Damages

Cur Adv Vult

On 2 November 1992, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle along Clementi Road when he was involved in a collision with a motorcar driven by the defendant. The plaintiff commenced this action in November 1994 and on 13 April 1995 he obtained an interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed.

The assessment took place before the assistant registrar on 1 March 1996. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties informed the court that they had agreed on the special damages payable in respect of the plaintiff`s medical expenses, his transport for medical treatment, the repairs to his motorcycle and the costs of future surgery, medical and transport expenses. The parties had also agreed on the damages payable in respect of the suffering caused by the plaintiff`s physical injuries. The claims left for determination at the assessment were those made in respect of pre-trial loss of earnings, loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity. At the end of the hearing, the learned assistant registrar made awards in the plaintiff`s favour under all three categories. The defendant appealed against all the awards and the appeal was heard before me.

The evidence

The only person who gave evidence at the assessment was the plaintiff himself. He is a Malaysian citizen living in Johor who was born on 6 August 1947. At the time of the hearing, he was 48 years old and employed as a carpenter, an occupation he said he had been engaged in all his adult life.

As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained a fracture of the medial condyle of his left femur which extended into the knee joint; superficial lacerations over the chin and right ring finger; contusion of the right shoulder and a head injury. The most serious injury was that to his left leg. It was treated by open reduction and internal fixation. The plaintiff spent about three and a half week in hospital in Singapore and thereafter continued treatment as an out-patient. The implants in his left femur were removed in April 1993.

By 6 January 1994, when the plaintiff was seen by an orthopaedic surgeon at the National University of Singapore for the purposes of a specialist`s report, he was walking independently. He complained of intermittent pain in his left knee which was aggravated by prolonged walking and on climbing stairs. An x-ray of the left knee showed that the fracture had united. The doctor opined, however, that the pain in the knee experienced by the plaintiff was due to damage to the surface of the joint resulting from his injury. This would restrict his ability to perform work involving carrying loads, climbing, squatting and prolonged walking.

According to the plaintiff`s affidavit of evidence in chief, he had been working in Singapore as a carpenter since the 1970s whenever he could obtain a work permit. During those periods when the permit expired, he would return to find work in Malaysia. At the time of the accident, he was working for a Singapore company called Eng Keong Construction Pte Ltd (Eng Keong). When his work permit was applied for, his salary was stated to be $7,200 per annum or $600 a month. This was actually his basic pay. It did not include overtime done and additional work for other companies to which he was seconded by Eng Keong. In total, the plaintiff asserted that he earned an average of $60 a day or $1,800 a month.

After the accident, the plaintiff was not able to resume employment until December 1994 when he managed to obtain work with a Singapore firm called Hip Gee Construction owned by his friend. He said that he was only able to secure this job as he was a friend of the owner and because of his experience. The plaintiff asserted that he is now unable to stand or walk for long without experiencing pain. When he walks, he does so unsteadily, with a limp. Also his knee movement is restricted. This causes him real problems when working on a construction site as on such sites he not only has to do the actual carpentry work but has to carry tools and materials over uneven ground littered with debris.

According to the plaintiff, in his job with Hip Gee Construction, his principle responsibility is to supervise work and to do the simple tasks that can be done at ground level. Often he has to sit down and rest after working for a while. He cannot squat because of pain. This is very inconvenient in carpentry work. He now works normal hours (8am to 5pm) with breaks and is paid S$40 per day. Because of his limitations he is unable to do the overtime work whereby he would have been able to earn an additional $40 a day. According to him, Malaysians working in Singapore usually work seven days a week and he would do so also as he has to support his family. As a result, he has lost income amounting to $1,200 a month.

The plaintiff did not produce any documents in support of his income figures apart from a letter from Eng Keong which certified that when the plaintiff was employed by them, his salary was $600 a month. The defendant furnished copies of the IR8A form prepared by Eng Keong for the plaintiff for the period 4 May 1991 to 31 December 1991 and the year 1992. These disclosed that in 1991 the plaintiff earned $541 a month and in 1992 he earned $677 a month.

Pre-trial loss of earnings

From the award made, it appears that the learned assistant registrar assessed the plaintiff`s income at the time of the accident at $1,500 a month. He then divided the pre-trial period into three sub-periods and made separate assessments of the pre-trial loss of earnings during each of those periods. The first period was from the date of the accident up to 24 November 1993 when the plaintiff`s medical leave ended. For this 13 month period, the learned assistant registrar awarded the plaintiff his full earnings of $1,500 a month. The next period was from December 1993 to November 1994. Loss of earnings was awarded on the basis of a loss of $1,200 a month. Finally, for the period from December 1994 to March 1996, the plaintiff was awarded loss of earnings on the basis of a loss of $800 a month.

On appeal, Mr Jayabalan for the defendant, did not dispute that the plaintiff should be awarded his full earnings for the first period of 13 months. What he was dissatisfied with was the fixing of $1,500 as the amount of such salary. His main contention was that there was insufficient evidence to support that figure. Having considered the arguments, I am in agreement with the defendant`s position.

As counsel pointed out that the only documentary evidence as to the plaintiff`s salary before the accident comprised documents furnished by Eng Keong which indicated that this did not exceed $677 a month. No evidence was called to contradict the employer`s letter or the attached income tax forms. Neither did any one from the plaintiff`s present employer testify. Further, the plaintiff was...