Wong Siew Mee v Jee Lee and another (Tan Poh Weng Andy (formerly known as Tan Poh Kim), third party)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu SJ
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 110
• Docket Number: Originating Summons 1052 of 2019 (Registrar’s Appeal No 312 of 2019)
• Date: 27 May 2020
• Published date: 02 June 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Seah Choon Huat Johnny (Seah & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Pang Weng Rong and Anthony Wee (United Legal Alliance LLC)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 11 November 2019
• Subject Matter: Transfer of cases,Courts And Jurisdiction,High court

Lai Siu Chiu SJ:

On 20 August 2019, Wong Siew Mee (“the Plaintiff”) applied in Originating Summons No. 1052 of 2019 (“the OS”) for her claim in negligence against (i) Jee Lee (“the First Defendant”) and (ii) SMRT Buses (“the Second Defendant”) (collectively “the Defendants”) in DC Suit 3403 of 2013 (“the DC Suit”) to be transferred to the High Court. The OS was premised on s 54B of the State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) (“the SCA”) as well as Order 89(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322 R 5, 2014 Rev Ed).

The OS was opposed by the Defendants, whose solicitor Pang Weng Fong (“Pang”) filed an affidavit setting out the Defendants’ objection to the OS. The OS was heard and dismissed by the Assistant Registrar (“the learned AR”) on 16 October 2019. The Plaintiff filed Registrar’s Appeal No. 312 of 2019 (“the RA”) against the learned AR’s decision.

The RA came up for hearing before this court. I affirmed the decision of the learned AR and dismissed the appeal on 11 November 2019. As the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with my decision and has filed a notice of appeal (in CA 221 of 2019) against the dismissal of the OS, I now set out the reasons.

The facts

The Plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury in a motor accident that took place on 26 May 2010 (“the first accident”) when the Second Defendant’s motor bus TIB 1189R, then driven by the First Defendant, rear-ended into motor van GT723J driven by Andy Tan, then known as Tan Poh Kim (“the Third Party”). The Plaintiff was a passenger in the said motor van. She sued the Defendants in MC Suit 14711 of 2011 (“the first claim”) filed on 14 June 2011. Besides sustaining physical injuries from the first accident, the Plaintiff apparently developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a consequence.¹

On 6 October 2011, the Plaintiff whilst driving motor vehicle no. SGV7735T was involved in another accident (“the second accident”) when motor vehicle no SGM1114Y driven by one Gan Siew Choo (“Mr Gan”) collided into her car. She commenced a separate action against Mr Gan for the second accident in MC Suit 24606 of 2013 (“the second claim”) on 14 November 2013.²

On 17 October 2011, the First Defendant issued a Third Party Notice against the Third Party in the first claim after obtaining leave of court.

On 4 July 2012, consent interlocutory judgment against both Defendants in the first claim was obtained by the Plaintiff with damages to be assessed by the Registrar; and the Third Party was to indemnify the Defendant for 5% of the Plaintiff’s claim.³

On 16 May 2013, the Plaintiff applied in Originating Summons No. 142 of 2013 (“the transfer application”) to transfer the first claim to the District Courts pursuant to Order 89 rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322 R 5, 2006 Rev Ed). On 12 July 2013, the transfer application was granted and the first claim was converted to the DC Suit.⁴

On 26 March 2014, the Plaintiff filed Summons for Directions for the DC Suit (“the First S/D”). Directions were given on the First S/D on 24 April 2014. According to Pang’s affidavit, the Plaintiff did not comply with the directions given in the First S/D.⁵

The Plaintiff filed a second Summons for Directions on 15 December 2014 (“the Second S/D”). Directions were given on the Second S/D on 30 December 2014.⁶

On 17 March 2016, the Plaintiff’s former solicitors obtained an order of court discharging themselves from further acting for her. The Plaintiff gave notice of intention on 5 April 2016 that she intended to act in person. On the same day, she filed the third Summons for Directions (“the third S/D”). Directions were given on the third S/D on 19 April 2016.⁷

On 27 September 2016, the Plaintiff obtained consent interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed, against Mr Gan in the second claim on the basis he was 60% liable for the second accident.

The Plaintiff appointed her present solicitors a year later on 17 March 2017. They filed (out of time, according to Pang’s affidavit) her first affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”) on 17 April 2017.⁸

On 20 April 2017, the Plaintiff filed (out of time) a notice of appointment for assessment of damages.⁹

On 7 June 2017, the Defendants served Interrogatories on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff refused to answer the Interrogatories, prompting the Defendants to file an application on 29 June 2017¹⁰ to compel her to answer, which was granted on 15 August 2017. The Defendants followed up with another application on 6 September 2017¹¹ for an “unless order” to be made against the Plaintiff to compel her compliance; the court granted the “unless order” on 5 October 2017. The Plaintiff served her Answers to the Interrogatories on 16 October 2017.¹²

On 6 June 2018, the Plaintiff filed her second AEIC.

On 10 September 2018, the Defendants applied to the State Courts for consolidation of the two claims¹³ (“the first consolidation application”). The first consolidation application was dismissed on 9 October due to some irregularity. The Defendants filed a second consolidation application on 7 December 2018,¹⁴ which the State Courts granted on 11 December 2018, directing that the DC Suit and the second claim be heard together before the same court.¹⁵

The first tranche of the hearing for assessment of damages for both claims was fixed by the State Courts to take place on 17 May 2019.

The assessment hearing on 17 May 2019 was adjourned as the court decided it would hear the claim in the DC Suit first followed by the second claim instead of both at the same time.¹⁶

On 23 July 2019, the State Courts notified the parties that the first tranche of the assessment for the DC Suit would be refixed to 18 October 2019.¹⁷

The Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the solicitors for the Defendants and the Third Party on 14 June 2019. They sought the endorsement of the Defendants and Third Party to a memorandum under s 23 of the SCA, consenting to the first claim remaining in the State Courts notwithstanding the possibility that the Plaintiff’s claim may exceed $250,000, in lieu of a transfer to the High Court. The Defendants’ solicitors replied on 20 June 2019 to say they had no instructions to consent to the memorandum. The Plaintiff filed the OS on 20 August 2019.

At the hearing of the RA, as part of her counsel’s submissions, the Plaintiff set out the following table of timelines or work done to pursue her first claim to support her argument that there had been no delay in her prosecution of the first claim/DC Suit:¹⁸

	Date	Events
1	26.5.2010	Accident
2	14.6.2011	Filing of first claim
3	04.7.2012	Interlocutory judgment for first claim
4	12.7.2013	Transfer of first claim to DC Suit
5	04.2.2016	Plaintiff’s solicitors applied to discharge themselves
6	17.3.2016	Order for discharge granted
7	17.3.2017	Plaintiff appointed her current solicitors
8	17.4.2017	Plaintiff filed her first AEIC
9	07.6.2017	Defendants served Interrogatories on Plaintiff
10	13.10.2017	Plaintiff answered Interrogatories
11	Mar 2018	Report from Dr Lim Yee Gee of Orthopaedic department, Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”)
12	Apr 2018	Report obtained from Dr Yip Chun Wei of Neurology Department, SGH
13	Jan 2016	Psychological report from Dr Lim of Plaintiff’s second accident
14	Jun 2018	Request from Defendants’ solicitors for Plaintiff to see their specialist
15	Jul 2018	Report from Dr Brian Yeo, the Defendants’ specialist
16	18.9.2018	Request for report from psychiatrist, SGH
17	Oct/Nov 2018	Defendants’ first consolidation application
18	8.11.2018	Defendants’ consolidation application for second claim
19	Dec 2018	Defendants’ second consolidation application
20	1.02.2019	Letter from SGH that request for psychiatrist report should be followed up with the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”)
21	30.6.2019	Defendants’ request for Plaintiff’s consent for medical documents from SGH

The Plaintiff’s above chronology omitted other medical reports she had obtained well before item 11 above (ie 14 March 2018). Her earlier medical reports were exhibited in Pang’s affidavit and were the following:¹⁹

	Date	Particulars
1	2.10.2010	Report of Island Orthopaedic Consultants
2	20.3.2013	Report of Island Orthopaedic Consultants
3	30.4.2013	Medical memorandum of Island Orthopaedic Consultants
4	04.3.2014	Report of Yeo Orthopaedic Centre
5	21.8.2014	Report of Dr Thong Jiunn Yew of Nobel Psychological Wellness Clinic (“NPWC”)
6	30.6.2016	Report of Dr Raja Sathy Velloo of IMH

Further, the Plaintiff’s list of medical reports in [23] also omitted six other medical reports listed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of her first AEIC filed in the DC Suit on 17 April 2017 (see [13] above). These were:²⁰

	Date	Particulars
1	27.7.2010	Report of Dr TH Loi of Tan Tock Seng Hospital
2	18.9.2010	Report of Dr KC Ng of Mount Alvernia Hospital
3	05.8.2010	Report of Dr KS Chan of Gleneagles Hospital
4	16.11.2011	Report of Dr Thong Jiunn Yew of NPWC
5	14.3.2012	Report of Dr Thong Jiunn Yew of NPWC
6	03.03.2016	Report of Dr Raja Sathy Velloo of IMH

In paragraph 4 of her second AEIC filed on 6 June 2018 (see [16] above), the Plaintiff referred to yet another medical report that was omitted from the list in [22], namely, the report of Dr Lim Yun Chin from Raffles Hospital dated 20 November 2016.

Not only were earlier medical reports omitted from the Plaintiff’s list at [22] but she also provided no explanation as to why it took her one year²¹ to appoint her current...