Wong Ah Sing v Government of Singapore and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 05 June 1967
• Neutral Citation: [1967] SGHC 11
• Citation: [1967] SGHC 11
• Date: 05 June 1967
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Dennis Murphy (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Docket Number: Suit No 773 of 1966
• Defendant Counsel: Wilfred Wee (State Counsel)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1967

The plaintiff in this case claims damages for personal injuries suffered by him and caused by the negligence of the third defendant, the servant of the first defendant, on 25 May 1965.

Both the first and third defendants deny that the third defendant was guilty of negligence and the third defendant counterclaims damages against the plaintiff for personal injuries suffered by him and caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in the riding of motor cycle No SAE 5756 on 25 May 1965.

In the defence to counterclaim the plaintiff denies that the accident was caused by his negligence and paras 4, 5 and 6 of the defence to counterclaim read:-

4 In suit no 65 of 1966 the third defendant sued the plaintiff for the same claim as in the counterclaim herein. The plaintiff will at the trial of this action refer to the writ and statement of claim in the said suit.

(5) The Provincial Insurance Co Ltd, the insurers of the said motor cycle No SAE 5756, by exchange of letters between their solicitors Messrs Rodyk & Davidson during the month of March 1966 with Messrs PT Wong & Co the solicitors for the plaintiff in said Suit (that is the third defendant herein) agreed to settle the claim in the said Suit for the sum of $5,000 and $350 costs and the said insurance company subsequently paid the said sum of costs to the said Messrs PT Wong & Co acting for and on behalf of the third defendant, and through the public trustee paid the said sum of $5,000 to the third defendant who accepted it on the terms of a discharge voucher which he then signed whereby he accepted the said sum in full and final payment of his said claim. The plaintiff will refer at the trial of this action to the said letters and the said discharge voucher for their full terms, true meaning and effect.

(6) The plaintiff says that by reason of the facts stated in paras 5 and 6 hereof the claim now again made in the counterclaim was extinguished or alternatively by reason of the said facts the third defendant is precluded from maintaining the counterclaim herein as this would be a fraud on the said insurance company.

No reply was filed by the defendants to the defence to counterclaim of the plaintiff.

I will now deal with the evidence adduced relating to the accident.

The plaintiff`s evidence was shortly this: On 25 May 1965 he was riding motor cycle No SAE 5756 along Kim Keat Road in the direction of Balestier Road. His speed was 25 mph. There was a bend in the road by a Chinese temple. He rounded the bend and he saw a refuse wagon on his right which was either stationary or moving very slowly coming in the opposite direction. He approached the wagon on his side of the road and as he passed the front of the wagon he suddenly saw a person running from behind the wagon across the road about ten ft in front of him. He applied his brakes but did not attempt to swerve. He hit the person. He fell down from his motor cycle and he did not remember anything more. He was taken to hospital. He sustained personal injuries.

The plaintiff called Corporal 644, Abdul Rahim bin Enduit, of the Traffic Police to give...