Wen Hanrong v Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 05 January 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] SGMC 3
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Parties: Wen Hanrong,Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd,Anbalagan Murugan

Wen Hanrong v Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd and another

[2026] SGMC 3

Suit No 10455 of 2020 (Assessment of Damages No 518 of 2024)

Wen Hanrong

Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd

Anbalagan Murugan

Magistrate's Court

Don Ho

Civil Procedure - Damages - Interest

Damages - Assessment

Damages - Measure of damages - Personal injuries cases

Legal Profession - Duties - Paramount duty to the court

Tort - Negligence - Causation

Lee Nyet Fah Alyssa (Alyssa Lee & Co), Gerald Ling (Ling & Ling LLC) and Manicka Karuppiah (Manicka & Company) for the plaintiff

Phua Cheng Sye Charles and Chee Hui Yen Charlene Clara (PKWA Law Practice LLC) for the defendants.

5 January 2026

Judgment reserved.

Deputy Registrar Don Ho:

Introduction

1. This judgment concerns the assessment of damages arising from a traffic accident that occurred on 13 October 2017, when the Plaintiff was struck by a cement truck whilst crossing a pedestrian crossing on his bicycle. What should have been a straightforward personal injury claim has instead become a protracted and unnecessarily complex proceeding, marked by significant and unjustifiable delays and the Plaintiff’s persistence in pursuing claims that were not substantiated by objective medical evidence. The conduct of the Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms Alyssa Lee (“Ms Lee”) of Alyssa Lee & Co, has been particularly troubling throughout these proceedings.

Background facts

2. In the afternoon of 13 October 2017, at about 2.40pm, the Plaintiff, Mr Wen Hanrong, was riding his bicycle (“the Bicycle”) to cross a signalised pedestrian crossing at Boon Lay Way, near its junction with Corporation Road, when he was knocked down by a cement truck driven by the Second Defendant (“the Cement Truck”), Mr Anbalagan Murugan, a worker under the employment of the First Defendant, Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd (collectively, the “Defendants”).¹

3. Following the accident, the Plaintiff felt “excruciating pain in [his] chest area” and had difficulties speaking. The Plaintiff was subsequently conveyed by the Second Defendant in the Cement Truck to the Emergency Department of Ng Teng Fong General Hospital (“NTFGH”) for medical treatment.²

Treatment at the Emergency Department

4. Upon further examination by the physician at the Emergency Department of NTFGH, it was noted that the Plaintiff had sustained a sternoclavicular joint injury with swelling and abrasions over his left elbow and left knee. An X-ray of the chest showed no fractures or dislocations.³ He was prescribed oral analgesics, injected with analgesics on the left arm and discharged on the same day with outpatient medical leave from 13 October 2017 to 16 October 2017. The Plaintiff was also referred to the NTFGH’s Orthopaedic Clinic for follow-up.⁴

The Bicycle

5. Following his discharge from the Emergency Department at about 9.30pm the same day, the Plaintiff was accompanied by his daughter, Ms Wen Lanfen (“Ms Wen”), and his son-in-law, Mr Lee Sei Yong (“Mr Lee”) to the Jurong West Neighbourhood Police Centre to file a traffic accident report. This was lodged at 12.04am the next morning. Thereafter, the trio went to the accident scene to retrieve the Plaintiff’s Bicycle, but found that it was missing.⁵

Discovery of fractures following the Emergency Department visit

6. On 16 October 2017, the Plaintiff and Ms Wen saw large bruises and swelling on his upper chest area. According to the Plaintiff, he felt “severe sharp pain from [his] chest injuries [which] caused [him] to have headache, giddiness, pain during breathing, coughing and speaking”. This prompted the Plaintiff to seek traditional Chinese medicine (“TCM”) treatment at Qun Jian Medical Hall on 17, 19, 21, 24, 27 October and 1 November 2017, where he was treated with electrotherapy, applications of ointment and external medication, oral medication and acupuncture.⁶ During his medical examination by Physician Kok Song Ling (“Physician KSL”) on 19 October 2017, it was noted that the Plaintiff’s blood pressure readings were elevated.⁷

7. On 23 October 2017, the Plaintiff consulted at the NTFGH Orthopaedic Clinic. He informed the doctor that he still had severe pain in his chest area. An X-ray was arranged, which similarly did not reveal any fractures of the sternum and sternoclavicular joints.⁸ A Computed Tomography (“CT”) scan of the thorax was scheduled for three weeks after.⁹

8. On 30 October 2017 and 1 November 2017, as the Plaintiff was still having a headache and severe pain in his chest area, he consulted Dr Huan Meng Wah (“Dr Huan”), a general practitioner, at Huan Clinic. Dr Huan found that the Plaintiff had elevated blood pressure and definite tenderness over his manubrium and lateral chest wall. A systolic murmur was heard over the Plaintiff’s left sternal edge and apex (areas of the heart). Dr Huan referred the Plaintiff for an urgent CT scan of the thorax on the same day. The scan revealed that the Plaintiff had sustained a fracture of the manubrium and fractures of four ribs: the first, second, third and fourth ribs on the left side, with the second rib being fractured at both its anterior (front) and posterior (back) portions. Given these findings, the Plaintiff was referred to Dr Liang Te Shan (“Dr Liang”), an orthopaedic surgeon at Orthopaedics International, for further management.¹⁰

9. On 7 November 2017, the Plaintiff saw Dr Liang and informed the surgeon that he still had chest pain and slight giddiness. Dr Liang ordered a CT scan of the brain, which did not reveal any brain injury. Dr Liang opined that the Plaintiff’s chest fractures should heal without surgery.¹¹

Chronic chest pain and further medical consultations

10. The Plaintiff claimed that he continued to experience pain in the left chest and shoulder area whenever he carried items weighing more than 2kg. As such, on 14 November 2018, he returned to Qun Jian Medical Hall and was attended to by Physician Kok Choon Siong (“Physician KCS”), who treated the Plaintiff with acupuncture, cupping, external plasters and oral medication.¹²

11. On 6 November 2020, the Plaintiff sought a medical examination by another orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Chang Wei Chun (“Dr Chang”) of Orthopaedic & Traumatic Surgery Pte Ltd.¹³ Dr Chang advised that the residual pain and tenderness of the Plaintiff’s left chest wall would be chronic.¹⁴

12. On 15 December 2020, the Plaintiff returned for further medical examination by Physician KSL who noted that the Plaintiff’s blood pressure readings were still elevated, and that the Plaintiff still experienced pain whenever he carried heavy loads with his left arm. There was also mild bulging in the ribs and chest area¹⁵

13. On 27 December 2020, the Plaintiff departed for China. He returned to Singapore on 16 May 2021 and continued staying at Ms Wen’s home. During his stay in China, the Plaintiff underwent medical examinations at Meizhou Huapu Hospital and The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Yuedong Hospital for his high blood pressure.¹⁶ Following his return to Singapore, the Plaintiff sought further treatment for his high blood pressure with Dr Huan on 22 May 2021.¹⁷

14. The Plaintiff filed the present action on 2 October 2020.

Procedural history

15. Given the extended duration and complexity of these proceedings, I set out in some detail the procedural history of the present action. On 30 April 2021, interlocutory judgment was entered by consent on a 100% liability basis against both Defendants for damages to be assessed.¹⁸ On 31 August 2021, the Plaintiff filed a statement of special damages and a supplementary list of documents.

16. On 30 December 2021, the Plaintiff filed a summons for directions vide MC/SUM 6118/2021 (“SUM 6118”). Among other things, the Plaintiff sought an order (which the Defendants agreed to) for Dr Chang to be appointed as the Single Joint Expert (“SJE”) as regards medical evidence. SUM 6118 was granted by Deputy Registrar Joanne Leong on the same day, with a direction that the Plaintiff file a Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages (“NOAD”) by 31 March 2022. The Plaintiff duly filed the NOAD by that deadline, accompanied by a checklist (“the Checklist”) confirming that all expert reports intended for reliance at the assessment of damages had been filed for the purposes of the first Assessment of Damages Court Dispute Resolution Conference (“ADCDR Conference”). For context, in respect of personal injury motor accident claims at the State Courts, an ADCDR Conference is convened following the filing of an NOAD for the court to provide a quantum indication to facilitate settlement: see PD 40(1)(e) of the State Courts Practice Directions 2014 (“the Practice Directions”).

17. However, on 20 April 2022, the Plaintiff wrote in to inform the Court that on 14 April 2022, he had been referred by Dr Huan to see a cardiologist in view of suspected left ventricular hypertrophy. The Plaintiff was therefore not ready to seek a neutral evaluation from the Court.¹⁹ Accordingly, at the first ADCDR Conference on 25 April 2022, the NOAD was struck off by Deputy Registrar Rachel Tan on the basis that the confirmations in the Checklist were no longer accurate, PD 40 of the Practice Directions had not been complied with, and the Plaintiff was not in a position to engage in the ADCDR process.²⁰

18. On 30 March 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Supplementary List of Documents (“SLOD”). On 4 August 2023, the State Courts Registry wrote to the parties to call a pre-trial conference pursuant to O 34A of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”), since the matter had remained inactive for some time (“the O 34A PTC”).

The first and second O 34A PTC

19. At the first O 34A PTC on 7 September 2023, Senior Deputy Registrar Chiah Kok Khun (“SDR Chiah”) noted the SLOD appeared to have been filed solely to prevent automatic discontinuance under O 21 r 2(6) of the ROC. Counsel for the Plaintiff, Ms Lee, informed the Court that the Plaintiff had...