Harte v Tan: Negligence, Medical Malpractice & Costs in Fertility Treatment

In Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and Gleneagles Hospital Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed a negligence claim against Dr. Tan for fertility treatment and post-operative care. Mr. Harte alleged negligence and breach of duty of care. The court found Dr. Tan negligent in post-operative care, awarding S$96,600 in damages, but dismissed the claim against Gleneagles Hospital. The court also addressed the allocation of costs, considering offers to settle and the complexity of the case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Denis Harte sued Dr. Tan for negligence in fertility treatment. The court found Dr. Tan negligent in post-operative care, awarding damages, and addressed cost allocation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Gleneagles Hospital LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Tan Hun HoeDefendantIndividualJudgment against Defendant in partLost
Denis Matthew HartePlaintiffIndividualJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lek Siang PhengHelen Yeo & Partners
Vivienne LimHelen Yeo & Partners
Jamie YupHelen Yeo & Partners
Myint SoeMyint Soe Mohamed Yang & Selvaraj
Daniel XuMyint Soe Mohamed Yang & Selvaraj
Mohamed AbdullahMyint Soe Mohamed Yang & Selvaraj
Edmund KronenburgDrew & Napier
Raj SingamDrew & Napier

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Harte alleged Dr. Tan was negligent in treating his fertility problem.
  2. Mr. Harte underwent a bilateral varicocelectomy operation performed by Dr. Tan.
  3. Mr. Harte claimed Dr. Tan breached his duty of care and contractual duties.
  4. Gleneagles Hospital was joined as a defendant based on Dr. Tan being their servant or agent.
  5. The court found Dr. Tan negligent in his post-operative care and treatment.
  6. Mr. Harte's claim against the hospital was dismissed.
  7. Dr. Tan made two offers to settle, which Mr. Harte did not accept.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and Another, Suit 1691/1999, [2001] SGHC 19

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit filed (Suit 1691/1999)
Dr. Tan offered to settle the claim for S$150,000
Dr. Tan increased offer to settle to S$300,000
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found Dr. Tan negligent in his post-operative care and treatment of Mr. Harte.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of duty of care
      • Causation
      • Post-operative care
  2. Costs
    • Outcome: The court addressed the allocation of costs, considering offers to settle and the complexity of the case, and made orders regarding the payment of costs by Dr. Tan and Mr. Harte.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Offers to settle
      • Bullock order
      • Sanderson order
      • Discretion of the court
  3. Vicarious Liability
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the claim against Gleneagles Hospital, finding no vicarious liability for Dr. Tan's actions.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Duty of Care
  • Breach of Contractual Duties

10. Practice Areas

  • Medical Malpractice Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sanderson v. Blyth Theatre Co.Court of AppealYes[1903] 2 K.B. 533England and WalesCited to define Sanderson order, where the unsuccessful defendant pays the successful defendant's costs directly.
Bullock v. London General Omnibus Co.N/AYes[1907] 1 K.B. 264England and WalesCited to define Bullock order, where the plaintiff pays the successful defendant's costs and recovers them from the unsuccessful defendant.
Mulready v Bell LtdN/AYes[1953] 2 All ER 215England and WalesCited for the principle that a Bullock or Sanderson order is not appropriate where the plaintiff alleges independent causes of action against different defendants.
Mohd bin Sapri v Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd and another appealN/AYes[1996] 2 SLR 505SingaporeCited for the principle that if the plaintiff includes an additional defendant because of his uncertainty of the law rather than the facts, the court will not make either a Bullock or Sanderson order.
Poulton v MooreN/AYes[1913] WN 349England and WalesCited for the principle that a Bullock order is not made where the joinder of an additional defendant has resulted from the plaintiff being doubtful as to the law.
Donovan v. WaltersN/AYes(1926) 135 L.T. 12England and WalesCited for the principle that if the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is separate and distinct, it will be inappropriate for the unsuccessful defendant to pay the successful defendant's costs.
Tullio v MaoroCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 489SingaporeCited for the principles governing the award of costs.
Re Elgindata LtdN/AYes[1993] 1 All ER 232England and WalesCited for the principles governing the award of costs.
Finlay v Railway ExecutiveN/AYes[1950] 2 All E.R. 969England and WalesCited for the principle that the defendant paying money into court exceeding the sum awarded is generally regarded as the successful party in the litigation.
Baylis Baxter Ltd v SabathN/AYes[1958] 2 All ER 209England and WalesCited for the principle that a successful party may be deprived of his costs if he presents a false case or false evidence.
Buckle v HolmesN/AYes[1926] 2 KB 125England and WalesCited for the principle that leave to appeal may be granted if the question is one of general importance and one upon which further argument and a decision of the Court of Appeal would be to the public advantage.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & AnorN/AYes[1997] 3 SLR 489SingaporeCited for the principles concerning leave to appeal.
The Annot LyleN/AYes(1886) 1 PD 114England and WalesCited for the principle that the court does not deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of his litigation, and lock up the funds to which prima facie he is entitled, pending an appeal.
Wilson v Church (No2)N/AYes(1879) 12 Ch D 454England and WalesCited for the principle that when a party is exercising his undoubted right of appeal, the court ought to see that the appeal, if successful, is not nugatory.
Atkins v Great Western Railway CoN/AYes(1886) 2 TLR 400England and WalesCited for the principle that a stay will be granted if it can be shown by affidavit that, if the damages and costs are paid, there is no reasonable probability of getting them back, if the appeal succeeds.
Lee Sian Hee v Oh Kheng SoonN/AYes[1992] 1 SLR 77SingaporeCited for the principles concerning stay of execution.
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdN/AYes[1999] 2 SLR 233SingaporeCited for the principle that the court, in every case, will have to examine the facts to see if special circumstances justifying the grant of a stay of execution exists.
Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd v LKM Investment Holdings Pte LtdN/AYes[2000] 1 SLR 701SingaporeCited for the principle that the court, in every case, will have to examine the facts to see if special circumstances justifying the grant of a stay of execution exists.
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JBN/AYes[1991] 1 MLJ 83MalaysiaCited for the principle that the existence of strong grounds for an appeal based on the incorrectness or invalidity of a judgment does not constitute a special circumstance upon which a stay of execution pending appeal should be granted.
The SalaveryN/AYes[1968] 1 Lloyds Rep 53N/ACited for the principle that an offer of settlement made only 11 days before the trial should not be considered.
Colgate Palmolive Ltd v. Markwell FinanceN/AYes[1990] R.P.C. 197N/ACited for the principle that an offer of settlement afforded no basis for denying the plaintiffs their full costs of the actions when the letter was sent five days before trial.
Sutcliffe v SmithN/AYes(1886) 2 T.L.R. 881England and WalesCited for the principle that whenever a defendant had by his mis-statements, made under circumstances which imposed an obligation upon him to be truthful and careful in what he said, brought litigation on himself, and rendered the action reasonable, there would be 'good cause' to deprive him of costs.
Wu Shu Chen v Raja Zainal Abidin bin Raja Hussin & AnorN/AYes[1995] 3 MLJ 224MalaysiaCited for the principle that what may amount to special circumstances is a question of fact in each case, it must be something distinctive and out of the way.
Calderbank v CalderbankN/AYes[1975] 3 W.L.R. 586England and WalesCited in relation to Calderbank offers.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court
Order 22A Rule 9
Order 22A Rule 10
Order 22A Rule 11
Order 22A Rule 12
Order 59 Rule 2(2)
Order 59 Rule 3(2)
Order 59 Rule 5
Order 59 Rule 7(1)
Order 59 Rule 7(2)(b)
Order 59 Rule 7(2)(a)
Order 59 Rule 7(2)(c)
Order 59 Rule 8
Order 57 Rule 15
Order 18 Rule 19

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Varicocelectomy
  • Post-operative care
  • Costs
  • Offer to settle
  • Bullock order
  • Sanderson order
  • Vicarious liability
  • Joint liability

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Medical malpractice
  • Fertility treatment
  • Costs
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Medical Malpractice85
Cost Order80
Offers to Settle75
Personal Injury70
Damages65
Stay of Execution60
Civil Litigation60
Civil Procedure50
Appeal40
Evidence40
Breach of Contract30
Contract Law30
Estoppel20
Jurisdiction20
Asset Recovery15
Summary Judgement10

16. Subjects

  • Medical Law
  • Civil Litigation
  • Costs
  • Negligence