Zeng Min and others (dependants of Zhang Lan, deceased) v Mak Weng Tuck

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Terence Tan Zhong Wei AR
• Judgment Date: 11 July 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHCR 9
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 03 July 2012,11 June 2012,12 June 2012
• Docket Number: Suit No 11 of 2011/S
• Plaintiff Counsel: Liew Hwee Tong Eric (Gabriel Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Anparasan s/o Kamachi (KhattarWong LLP)
• Subject Matter: Damages,Assessment,Dependency claims
• Published date: 31 July 2012

Terence Tan Zhong Wei AR:

This is an assessment of damages arising from a fatal collision between Zhang Lan (“the Deceased”) and the taxi driven by Mak Weng Tuck (“the defendant”) on 20 June 2009. The Deceased sustained severe injuries from the accident and subsequently passed away on 21 June 2009. Zeng Min, Zhang Gu, and Luo Ping (collectively known as “the Dependants”) sued the defendant for depriving them of “the pecuniary and other benefits which they would have received had the Deceased continued to live”. The Dependants subsequently obtained interlocutory judgment against the defendant, with the defendant agreeing to pay 100% of the damages to be assessed.

Having considered the evidence and closing submissions of both parties, I now set out my judgment.

The factual matrix

At the time of the accident, the Deceased, a Chinese National, was working as a research fellow with the Institute for Infocomm Research (“I2R”), a member of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (“A*Star”) in Singapore, earning a monthly salary of $4,600.00. He had been working in this capacity at I2R for about two months. In I2R’s offer of appointment letter to the Deceased (“I2R’s offer of appointment”), it was provided that upon the conferment of a Doctor of Philosophy (“PhD”) on the Deceased, “[his] gross monthly salary will be revised to S$4,900 and [his] contract will be revised to a three-year contract” [emphasis in original]. The Deceased was conferred his PhD on 31 May 2010 (about a year after his death on 21 June 2009), and it followed that his contract with I2R would run for three years to June 2013. The Deceased’s employment package also included an annual wage supplement (“AWS”) of one calendar month per calendar year and eligibility for a performance bonus based on his work performance.

Zeng Min (“the wife”) is the widow of the Deceased. She was 29 years old at the time of the Deceased’s death, and is presently working in Singapore as an engineer, earning a salary of $3,700.00 per month. The Deceased and the wife had no children and did not own any property in Singapore. Zhang Gu (“the father”) and Luo Ping (“the mother”) are the parents of the Deceased (collectively known as “the parents”). They are both retired and currently live in China, where they receive a monthly pension of RMB2,659.00 (about $530.43) and RMB1,500.00 (about $299.23) respectively. The father was 62 years old while the mother was 61 years old at the time of the Deceased’s death.

The abovementioned facts and events are not in dispute. I also note that parties have agreed on the bereavement sum and all the items under special damages, except for the legal fees incurred by the Dependants in applying for grant of Letters of Administration (“LOA”). Parties are, however, in disagreement as to the dependency claims brought by the Dependants.

Agreed items

Parties are in agreement for the following items: (a) Bereavement sum: $15,000.00; and (b) Special damages: $23,107.29, comprising of: (i) Medical expenses: $555.00 (ii) Funeral expenses in Singapore: $4,840.78 (iii) Funeral expenses in China: $8,000.00 (iv) Transport expenses in Singapore: $150.00 (v) Transport expenses in China: $200.00 (vi) Postage charges: $0.00 (vii) Lodging in Singapore: $2,328.32 (viii) Lodging in China: $32.00 (ix) Air tickets: $7,001.19 (x) Oath fees in China: $0.00

Items in dispute Special damages

In respect of special damages, parties were only unable to agree on one item, namely, the legal fees incurred for the Dependants’ application for grant of LOA.

The Dependants submitted that this should be fixed at $6,317.80. The defendant relied on Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius and another v Tan Harry and another [2004] 3 SLR(R) 588 (“Teo Chee Yeow”), where $3,407.40 was awarded for the costs of obtaining LOA even though there were multiple assets listed, to argue that an award of $2,000.00 for the costs of obtaining these letters would be “more than fair” given that the Deceased only had one asset listed in his Schedule of Assets.

I disagree with the defendant’s submission and award the sum of $6,317.80 to the Dependants for the costs of obtaining grant of LOA. The Dependants’ lawyers have provided a tax invoice dated 29 July 2010 with a clear breakdown of how much was charged for each item pursuant to the Dependants’ application for grant of LOA. I note that the application for grant of LOA required, inter alia, consultation with Chinese lawyers on intestacy law in China and also affidavits of foreign law, none of which was required in Teo Chee Yeow, which incidentally, was a case from almost eight years ago. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it is fair and reasonable for me to award the Dependants the sum of $6,317.80 for this item under the special damages sought, and I so order.

General damages – dependency claim amount The applicable law

The main source of dispute in this assessment was with respect to the dependency claims brought by the Dependants. In this regard, it is appropriate for me to begin by looking at the relevant legal principles with respect to dependency claims.

The statutory basis of a dependency claim can be found in ss 20(1) and (2) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the Act”):

Right of action for wrongful act causing death

20. —(1) If death is caused by any wrongful act, neglect or default which is such as would (if death has not ensued) have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the person who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured. (2) Subject to section 21(2), every such action shall be for the benefit of the dependants of the person (referred to in this section and in sections 21 and 22 as the deceased) whose death has been so caused. The definition of a “dependant” is set out in s 20(8) of the Act, and includes, inter alia, “the wife or husband or the deceased” and “any parent … of the deceased”.

S 22(1) of the Act provides for damages “as are proportioned to the losses resulting from the death to the dependants respectively”. It is trite that the damages are to be calculated “in reference to a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit, as of right or otherwise, from the continuance of life”: Gul Chandiram Mahtani and another (administrators of the estate of Harbajan Kaur, deceased) v Chain Singh and another [1998] 2 SLR(R) 801 at [17].

The Singapore position on the assessment of damages arising from a dependency claim is further elaborated in Julian Chin et al, Assessment of Damages: Personal Injuries and Fatal Accidents (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2nd Ed: 2005) (“Assessment of Damages”) p 98 as follows:

There is no need to show that the dependant was receiving pecuniary benefit at the time of the death: Ng Siew Choo v Tan Kian Choon [1990] SLR 331. A purely prospective loss is sufficient.

…

There must, however, be a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage. The Court of Appeal in Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen (supra) referred to the case of Barnett v Cohen [1921] 2 KB 461 where the deceased child was four years old and it was clear that the father of the deceased had not lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage as the claim was far too speculative.

[emphasis in bold italics added]

With respect to the method of assessing the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit suffered by a defendant, the authors of Assessment of Damages state at p 99 that:

This is usually done by way of the multiplier-multiplicand method. The value of the dependency (the multiplicand) is multiplied by a figure based on the number of years that the dependency might reasonably be expected to last but discounted so as to allow for the fact that a lump sum is being given now instead of periodical payments over the years (the multiplier).

The starting point in the calculation of the multiplier is the number of years that it is anticipated the dependency would have lasted had the deceased not been killed. This may vary as between different dependants based on the relationship between the deceased and the dependants and the personal circumstances of the deceased and the dependants: Ling Kee Ling and another v Leow Leng Siong and others [1994] 3 SLR(R) 395 at [8]. The court will also consider the age and expected working life of the deceased, as well as the age and expected life span of the dependants in selecting the multiplier: Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1068 at [32] (“Ho Yeow Kim”).

There are two main methods of determining the appropriate multiplicand. The first method is to ascertain the deceased's net annual income and deduct from that figure the deceased's own expenses: Balanalagirisamy Gowri Rajeswari and another (administrators of the estate of Radhakrishnan Hari Babu, deceased) v Wong Si Wah [2009] 1 SLR(R) 819 at [16] (“Balanalagirisamy”). The balance, it can be assumed, would be for the benefit of the dependants. To arrive at the deceased's net annual income, one should begin by considering the deceased's basic salary (see, ie, See Ah Haw v Ong Hock Thian and another [1983-1984] SLR(R) 618). The second method is to add up the financial benefits received by the dependants, such as rents and bills paid and pocket money. The proportion that is attributable to the benefit of the deceased, such as his share of the utilities bill, is then deducted.

The factors which affect the determination of the multiplicand are as follows (see Assessment of Damages at p 102): the probability of future increase or decrease in the annual dependency; the deceased’s educational level and earning potential; and the possibility of an unmarried deceased eventually marrying and the consequent expectation of a reduction in the contribution to the parent’s support: Ng...