Yap Boon Sim (intended administration of the estate of Goh Jik Lian, deceased) v Dr Lee Meng Kuan and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 29 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 255
• Date: 29 November 2000
• Subject Matter: Parties,Whether action should be dismissed,No executor or administrator appointed yet,s 20(4) Civil Law Act (Cap 43),Locus standi,Construction of statute,Statutory Interpretation,Whether action premature,Whether limbs of provision read disjunctively or conjunctively,Civil Procedure,Action commenced within six months of deceased's death,Action by dependant of deceased
• Docket Number: Suit No 600218 of 2000 (Registrar's Appeal No 600313 of 2000)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar, Renuka Chettiar and Prasana (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners),Tan Tian Luh (Helen Yeo & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kuah Boon Theng and Suji Sasidharan (Tan & Lim)

: This case arose from the alleged medical negligence of the first and second defendants. Goh Jik Lian (the deceased) was admitted into the second defendant`s hospital for a routine thyroid operation, which was performed on 18 October 1999. After the operation, the deceased`s wound showed signs of post-operative bleeding which required him to undergo further surgery. The first defendant, who was then the attendant anaesthetist, decided to intubate the deceased. This involved inserting a tube into the deceased`s airway to deliver oxygen to the deceased once he was unconscious. Due to the inexperience of the operating theatre staff, a plastic cap was affixed to one of the pieces of equipment used for the intubation; the resulting blockage caused the deceased to receive insufficient oxygen until the obstruction was discovered and removed, by which time it was too late. The deceased suffered irreversible brain damage and died a week later.

On 28 February 2000, the plaintiff in this case (who was the wife of the deceased) commenced these proceedings against the first and second defendants, alleging medical negligence and claiming damages. However, the plaintiff had yet to extract letters of administration at that date. On 29 September 2000, the first defendant`s lawyers applied, by way of SIC 603982/2000 (the application) for certain preliminary issues to be determined under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court. The preliminary issues, which pertained to the plaintiff`s locus standi to commence and maintain these proceedings, were as follows:

(i) whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the proceedings when they were commenced before the expiration of six months from the date of the death of the deceased;

(ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to commence the proceedings before the extraction of the grant of letters of administration

Just before the hearing of the application, both defendants admitted liability to the claim. Consequently, the only issue left for determination in these proceedings related to the quantum of damages to be awarded.

On 9 October 2000, the application was dismissed by the assistant registrar, who held that the plaintiff did have locus standi to commence these proceedings. Being dissatisfied with her decision, the defendants appealed to a judge-in-chambers by way of RA 600313/2000 (the appeal). I dismissed the appeal although I directed counsel for the plaintiff to amend the title to the action, the endorsement of claim as well as the statement of claim to make it clear that her client`s claim was as a dependant and not as an administrator, of the deceased`s estate.

Being dissatisfied with my decision, counsel for the defendants wrote in for further arguments which request I acceded to. Having reviewed the matter after hearing counsel`s further submissions, I now affirm my earlier decision and I set out my reasons for so doing.

Section 20(4) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Ed) (`the Act`)

Section 20(4) of the Act (1999 Ed) reads as follows:

If -

(a) there is no executor or administrator of the deceased; or

(b) no action is brought within six months after the death by and in the name of an executor or administrator of the deceased,

the action may be brought by and in the name of all or any of the persons for whose benefit an executor or administrator could have brought it.

In support of their case that the plaintiff had no locus standi to bring this action, the defendants argued that limbs (a) and (b) of s 20(4) should be given a conjunctive interpretation. In other words, the defendants are saying that the plaintiff can bring an action under s 20(4) only if there is no executor/administrator and no action has been brought within six months of the death of the deceased. In the present case, limb (a) was satisfied, in that no administrator had been appointed at the time the proceedings were commenced. However, it was argued for the defendants that the proceedings ran foul of limb (b) as, they were commenced within six months of death. The defendants contended that in order for limb (b) to have been satisfied, the plaintiff had to wait for six months to lapse before commencing these proceedings. Hence, the defendants submitted, this claim should be dismissed and a fresh action started. In support of this proposition, counsel for the defendants cited Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Siong [1992] 2 SLR 725 , which authority counsel for the plaintiff sought to distinguish.

The headnotes and the relevant holdings in that case read as follows:

The appellant`s husband died as a result of a traffic accident in 1986 when the vehicle in which he was a passenger

...