Tan Harry v Teo Chee Yeow: Negligence, Damages & Inheritance in Fatal Accident Claim

In Tan Harry and Another v Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius and Another, the Singapore High Court heard appeals concerning damages awarded to the plaintiffs, Harry Tan and Veronica Yeo Kwee Cheng, as dependants of their deceased son, Philip Tan, who died due to negligence during an anaesthetic procedure. The plaintiffs claimed damages against the anaesthetist, Aloysius Teo Chee Yeow, and Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal to increase the damages and allowed the defendants' appeals regarding the deduction of inherited assets and special damages for the Coroner's Inquiry. The court ruled on issues including the multiplicand, multiplier, apportionment of damages, and the deductibility of inherited assets from dependency claims.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal of Plaintiffs dismissed; Appeals of the Anaesthetist and Gleneagles Hospital allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning damages for negligence after Philip Tan's death during an anaesthetic procedure. Court addresses dependency claims, inheritance deductions, and special damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Teo Chee Yeow AloysiusDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Gleneagles Hospital LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Tan HarryPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Yeo Kwee Cheng VeronicaPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Myint SoeMyintSoe Mohamed Yang and Selvaraj
Deepak RajaMyintSoe Mohamed Yang and Selvaraj
Christopher ChongRodyk and Davidson
Daniel JohnJohn Tan and Chan
Marc WangJohn Tan and Chan

4. Facts

  1. Philip Tan died at Gleneagles Hospital after an anaesthetic procedure administered by Aloysius Teo Chee Yeow.
  2. Philip Tan was 35 years old at the time of his death; his parents, Harry Tan and Veronica Yeo, were 73 and 60 respectively.
  3. Liability for negligence was conceded by both the anaesthetist and Gleneagles Hospital.
  4. The Assistant Registrar awarded S$180,580.80 for the dependency claim and S$54,252.86 for the estate claim.
  5. The plaintiffs appealed for an increase in damages, while the defendants appealed against certain aspects of the award.
  6. Philip Tan's parents inherited assets including life insurance, CPF moneys, bank accounts, shares, and a car.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan Harry and Another v Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius and Another, Suit 814/2001, RA 162/2003, 164/2003, 165/2003, [2003] SGHC 275

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Philip Tan Kok Leong died at Gleneagles Hospital after an anaesthetic procedure.
Interlocutory judgment entered against the Defendants on the basis of 100% liability.
Assistant Registrar made orders regarding dependency claim, estate claim, and costs.
High Court dismissed the appeal of the Plaintiffs and allowed the appeals of the Anaesthetist and Gleneagles.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Measure of Damages
    • Outcome: The court addressed the calculation of damages, including the multiplicand, multiplier, and the deductibility of inherited assets. The court disallowed the claim for aggravated damages and reduced the special damages awarded for the Coroner's Inquiry.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Multiplicand calculation
      • Multiplier calculation
      • Deductibility of inherited assets
      • Special damages for Coroner's Inquiry
      • Pain and suffering
      • Aggravated damages
    • Related Cases:
      • [1942] AC 601
      • [1965] 2 All ER 875
      • [1990] SLR 331
  2. Deductibility of Inherited Assets from Dependency Claim
    • Outcome: The court held that certain assets inherited by the plaintiffs should be deducted from their dependency claim, reversing the Assistant Registrar's decision.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1942] AC 601
  3. Special Damages for Coroner's Inquiry
    • Outcome: The court disallowed the special damages awarded for costs related to the Coroner's Inquiry, finding that these costs were not properly pleaded.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Aggravated Damages in Negligence Claim
    • Outcome: The court disallowed the claim for aggravated damages, noting that such damages are generally not claimable in negligence cases and were not properly pleaded.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for dependency
  2. Damages for estate
  3. Aggravated damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Litigation
  • Medical Negligence

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen & AnorCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 246SingaporeCited regarding the use of evidence from the Institute of Technical Education to estimate the deceased’s future income.
Ang Song Huay v Chu Yong ThiamHigh CourtYesSuit No 196 of 1993SingaporeCited regarding the principle that an increase in salary does not necessarily mean an increase in the amount given to dependants.
Gul Chandiram Mahtani v Chain SinghHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 SLR 155SingaporeCited regarding the multiplier to be used in assessing the post-trial damages was to be applied from the date of trial, meaning the date of assessment.
Muthan Sinnathambi v Puran SinghHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR 103SingaporeCited regarding the multiplier should be computed from the date of death.
Cookson v KnowlesHouse of LordsYes[1979] AC 556United KingdomCited regarding the multiplier should be computed from the date of death.
Wells v WellsHouse of LordsYes[1999] AC 345United KingdomCited regarding actuarial tables.
Kassam v Kampala Aerated Water Co LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1965] 2 All ER 875OtherCited regarding reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit.
Ng Siew Choo v Tan Kim ChoonHigh CourtYes[1990] SLR 331SingaporeCited regarding the claim of the deceased’s mother in respect of her reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from her deceased son.
Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd v Lim Soon TongCourt of AppealYes[1985] 1 WLR 1075SingaporeCited regarding CPF contributions form part of the widow’s dependency claim.
Tay Say Moi & Ors v Mua Hin Poultry Farm Pte LtdHigh CourtYesSuit No 558 of 1989SingaporeCited regarding contributions to the deceased’s CPF account should be taken into account in the dependants’ claim.
Taylor v O’ConnorHouse of LordsYes[1971] AC 115United KingdomCited regarding the sums which the deceased would regularly have saved may be added to the multiplicand, or a separate additional sum may be calculated.
Chong Khin Ngen & another as administrator/administratrix respectively of the Estate of Chong Yun Jing, deceased v Lim Djoe PhingHigh CourtYesSuit 791 of 1987SingaporeCited regarding Counsel’s fees in connection with Counsel’s attendance of the Coroner’s Inquiry which lasted for 36 days.
Hammond & Co. vs. BusseyCourt of AppealYes20 QBD 81England and WalesCited regarding where a Plaintiff had to defend a previous action under reasonable circumstances, the costs incurred by the Plaintiff as Defendant in such action were recoverable.
Hadley vs BaxendaleCourt of ExchequerYes9 Ex.341England and WalesCited regarding damages which might reasonably be supposed to have been in contemplation of the parties, at the time when they made the contract, as the probable result of a breach of it.
Carpenter v BeckManitoba Court of AppealYes145 DLR (4th) 574CanadaCited regarding a claim for Counsel’s costs in attending an inquest into the death of the victim.
Thangavelu v Chia Kok BinHigh CourtYes[1981] 2 MLJ 277MalaysiaCited regarding $20,000 was awarded for pain and suffering.
See Ah Hwa & anor v Ong Hock ThianHigh CourtYes[1985] 2 MLJ 7MalaysiaCited regarding the award for pain and suffering was reduced from $3,000 to $1,000.
Appleton & others v GrantHigh CourtYes34 BMLR 23England and WalesCited regarding aggravated damages were claimable in instances of assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, libel and slander and trespass but not in negligence.
Kralj v McGrathHigh CourtYes[1986] 1 All ER 54England and WalesCited regarding aggravated damages were claimable in instances of assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, libel and slander and trespass but not in negligence.
AB v South West Water Services LtdCourt of AppealYes[1993] 1 All ER 609England and WalesCited regarding aggravated damages were claimable in instances of assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, libel and slander and trespass but not in negligence.
Gibbons v South West Water Services LtdCourt of AppealYes[1993] QB 507England and WalesCited regarding aggravated damages were claimable in instances of assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, libel and slander and trespass but not in negligence.
MBA Life Assurance v Yeo Hua San & OrsHigh CourtYesMBA Life Assurance v Yeo Hua San & Ors Civil Suit No. D5-22-380-91MalaysiaCited regarding an appeal from the decision of a deputy registrar was to be dealt with by way of a rehearing.
Europa Property & Finance Services Ltd. v. StubbertCourt of AppealYes(1991) The Times, November 25, CAEngland and WalesCited regarding the judge's discretion on hearing an appeal from a registrar is in no way hindered by the previous exercise of the registrar's discretion.
Silverlink (Hong Kong) Finance Ltd v Zhang Sabine Soi FanHigh CourtYes(1999) 85 HKCU 1Hong KongCited regarding the approach in Europa Property had been followed in other cases.
Shade v Compton PartnershipCourt of AppealYes(2000) PNLR 218England and WalesCited regarding the approach in Europa Property had been followed in other cases.
Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries LimitedHouse of LordsYes[1942] AC 601United KingdomCited regarding any benefit accruing to a dependant by reason of the relevant death must be taken into account.
Kassam v Kampala Aerated Water Co LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1965] 2 All ER 875OtherCited regarding no deduction should be made for acceleration of benefit.
Heatley v Steel Co of WalesHigh CourtYes[1953] 1 All ER 489England and WalesCited regarding the question was whether a family home should be deducted.
Daniels v JonesHigh CourtYes[1961] 3 All ER 24England and WalesCited regarding the question was whether a family home should be deducted.
Neo Sun Thun & Anor v Ng Peng HuiHigh CourtYes[1975-1977] SLR 345SingaporeCited regarding the question was whether a family home should be deducted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 121)Singapore
Civil Law ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Dependency claim
  • Estate claim
  • Multiplicand
  • Multiplier
  • Inherited assets
  • Coroner's Inquiry
  • Special damages
  • Aggravated damages
  • Negligence
  • Anaesthetic procedure

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • damages
  • fatal accident
  • dependency claim
  • inheritance
  • Singapore
  • medical negligence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Damages95
Measure of Damages90
Negligence90
Anaesthetic procedure70
Personal Injury60
Civil Procedure60
Judgments and Orders50
Automobile Accidents30
Administrative Law20

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Damages Assessment
  • Medical Negligence
  • Civil Procedure