Masters v To: Fatal Accident, Dependency Claim, Loss of Inheritance & Support

In Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam, the Singapore High Court addressed the assessment of damages following a fatal accident. Lassiter Ann Masters, the widow of Lassiter Henry Adolphus, sued To Keng Lam for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that resulted in her husband's death. The court considered claims for loss of inheritance, loss of support, and professional fees for post-mortem estate planning. The court dismissed the claim for loss of inheritance, varied the multiplier for the loss of support, and dismissed the claim for professional fees. The defendant's appeal regarding loss of support was dismissed, while the plaintiff's appeal was allowed in part.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendant's appeal dismissed and plaintiff's appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning damages for fatal accident. Widow's claim for loss of inheritance dismissed; loss of support claim varied.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lassiter Ann Masters (suing as the widow and dependant of Lassiter Henry Adolphus, deceased)Plaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
Michael Hwang of Michael Hwang
Ernest Wee of Michael Hwang
To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)Defendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Michael HwangMichael Hwang
Ernest WeeMichael Hwang
Siva MurugaiyanSant Singh Partnership
Anthony WeeRajah and Tann
Teo Guan KeeRajah and Tann
Quentin LohRajah and Tann

4. Facts

  1. Henry Adolphus Lassiter was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 9 May 1994.
  2. Lassiter Ann Masters, his widow, filed an action for damages on behalf of herself and other dependants.
  3. Consent judgment was entered against the defendant on the basis of 45% liability.
  4. The assessment of damages was heard before an assistant registrar.
  5. The assistant registrar dismissed the claim for loss of inheritance and professional fees.
  6. The assistant registrar assessed the claim for loss of support at US$130,000 per annum x eight years.
  7. Both the defendant and the plaintiff filed appeals against the assistant registrar's decision.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lassiter Ann Masters (suing as the widow and dependant of Lassiter Henry Adolphus, deceased) v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) (No 2), Suit 870/1997, RA 600066/2002, 600067/2002, [2005] SGHC 4

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Henry Adolphus Lassiter died in a motor vehicle accident.
Lassiter Ann Masters filed an action in the High Court.
Assessment of damages hearing began.
Assessment of damages hearing concluded.
Assistant Registrar delivered a written judgment.
Registrar's Appeal No 600066 of 2002 filed by the Driver.
Registrar's Appeal No 600067 of 2002 filed by AML.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Loss of Inheritance
    • Outcome: The court held that a claim for loss of inheritance is not maintainable in a dependency claim in Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Loss of Support
    • Outcome: The court varied the multiplier for the loss of support from eight years to ten years.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Professional Fees for Post-Mortem Estate Planning
    • Outcome: The court held that a claim for professional fees for post-mortem estate planning is an estate claim and not a dependency claim.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for loss of inheritance
  2. Damages for loss of support
  3. Damages for professional fees for post-mortem estate planning
  4. Special damages
  5. Damages for loss of bereavement

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Wrongful Death

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Law
  • Fatal Accidents
  • Dependency Claims

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Pickett v British Rail Engineering LtdCourt of AppealYes[1979] 1 All ER 774EnglandCited for the principle of allowing a claim for loss of earnings during the deceased’s lifetime rather than the shortened span of his life.
Gammell v WilsonHouse of LordsYes[1981] 1 All ER 578EnglandCited for the proposition that loss of savings is not part of a dependency claim and for the injustice of double recovery.
Low Kok Tong v Teo Chan PanCourt of AppealYes[1982–1983] SLR 346SingaporeCited as following Gammell v Wilson reluctantly and leading to amendments in Singapore legislation.
Franklin v The South Eastern Railway CompanyCourt of ExchequerYes(1858) 3 H&N 211EnglandCited for the principle that damages are to be calculated in reference to a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit.
Dalton v The South-Eastern Railway CompanyCourt of Common PleasYes(1858) 4 CB (NS) 296EnglandCited for the principle that the reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage by the relation remaining alive may be taken into account.
Pym v The Great Northern Railway CompanyQueen's BenchYes(1862) 2 B&S 759EnglandCited for the principle that savings may be taken into account in a dependency claim.
Taff Vale Railway Company v JenkinsHouse of LordsYes[1913] AC 1EnglandCited for reiterating the test of a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit.
Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Company LdPrivy CouncilYes[1951] AC 601British ColumbiaCited as authority for the proposition that a claim for loss of savings is maintainable in a dependency claim.
Mallet v McMonagleHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 166EnglandCited for the matters to be considered when assessing damages.
Taylor v O’ConnorHouse of LordsYes[1971] AC 115EnglandCited for taking into account the savings which the deceased would have made provision for but for his death.
Cookson v KnowlesHouse of LordsYes[1979] AC 556EnglandCited for the conventional method of calculating damages in fatal accidents.
Cape Distribution Ltd v O’LoughlinEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2001] EWCA Civ 178EnglandCited for the assessment of damages when the family’s financial affairs are not straightforward.
Tan Harry v Teo Chee Yeow AloysiusHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 513SingaporeCited to distinguish the current case from a previous decision regarding loss of savings.
Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd v Lim Soon YongCourt of AppealYes[1982–1983] SLR 167SingaporeCited for the proposition that a dependency claim can include a claim for future Central Provident Fund contributions.
Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd v Lim Soon YongPrivy CouncilYes[1985] 1 WLR 1075SingaporeCited for the proposition that a dependency claim can include a claim for future Central Provident Fund contributions.
Chan Yoke May v Lian Seng Co LtdHigh CourtYes[1962] MLJ 243MalaysiaCited for the view that the amount the deceased would have saved should be included in the general damages.
Lim Fook Lau v Kepdrill International Incorporated SAHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR 917SingaporeCited regarding the working life of professionals or businessmen.
Kassam v Kampala Aerated Water Co LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1965] 2 All ER 875UgandaCited for the decision that there should not be a deduction in a dependency claim for the acceleration of benefit which the young dependants had received from the estate of the deceased.
Neo Seo Thun v Ng Peng HuiHigh CourtYes[1975–1977] SLR 345SingaporeCited for approving the decision in Kassam v Kampala Aerated Water Co Ltd.
Yap Ami v Tan Hui PangFederal CourtYes[1982] 2 MLJ 316MalaysiaCited for the principle that a dependant should not be entitled to claim for loss of support if they continue to draw the deceased’s salary in his stand.
Jung Estate v KrimmerBritish Columbia Supreme CourtYes(1990) 47 BCLR (2d) 145British ColumbiaCited for a case where the widow drew a director’s fee after the deceased’s death and did not claim for loss of dependency.
Burgess v Management Committee of the Florence Nightingale Hospital for GentlewomenQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1955] 1 All ER 511EnglandCited for the principle that damages for injury to a husband resulting from the death of a wife are only recoverable if they are attributable to the relationship of husband and wife.
Davies v Whiteways Cyder Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[1975] QB 262EnglandCited for the principle that additional estate duty can be claimed as damages.
Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai KuenCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 246SingaporeCited for the proposition that the 1987 amendments did not alter the law on dependency claims.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Hong Kong Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap 23)Hong Kong

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Dependency claim
  • Loss of inheritance
  • Loss of support
  • Multiplier
  • Multiplicand
  • Fatal accident
  • Estate claim
  • Lost years
  • Accumulation of wealth

15.2 Keywords

  • Fatal accident
  • Dependency claim
  • Loss of inheritance
  • Loss of support
  • Damages
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Loss of Support90
Dependency Claim85
Measure of Damages80
Wrongful Death75
Fatal Accidents Act70
Personal Injury60
Automobile Accidents50
Succession Law40
Wills and Probate35
Family Law30
Civil Procedure25
Evidence20
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Damages
  • Fatal Accidents
  • Personal Injury