Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan: Negligence, Traffic Accident, Evidence Admissibility

In Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan, Yong Tian Choy being the third party, the High Court of Singapore heard a case arising from a traffic accident. Ong Bee Nah, the plaintiff and wife of the third party, Yong Tian Choy, sustained serious injuries as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Yong Tian Choy, which collided with a vehicle driven by Won Siew Wan, the defendant. The court, presided over by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC, found the defendant wholly liable for the accident, dismissing the defendant's action against the third party. The court's decision was influenced by the defendant's prior conviction for driving without due care and reasonable consideration, as well as the court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Traffic accident case. The court found the defendant wholly liable for the accident due to negligent driving and failure to give way.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ong Bee NahPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for the plaintiffWon
Won Siew WanDefendantIndividualAction dismissedLost
Yong Tian ChoyThird PartyIndividualAction dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Paul Yap Tai SanRayney Wong and Eric Ng
Edwin ChuaLawrence Chua and Partners
Lisa YeoLawrence Chua and Partners
M RamasamyWilliam Chai and Rama
Hemalatha SilwarajuWilliam Chai and Rama

4. Facts

  1. A traffic accident occurred on 18 January 2003 at the junction of Jalan Boon Lay and Boon Lay Way.
  2. The plaintiff was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by the third party.
  3. The defendant was driving her vehicle and intended to make a right turn at the junction.
  4. The third party was driving straight ahead while the defendant was making a right turn.
  5. The defendant had been convicted under section 65 of the Road Traffic Act for driving without due care.
  6. The traffic lights were in favor of the third party at the time of the accident.
  7. The defendant failed to give way to oncoming vehicles when making a right turn.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan, Suit 278/2004, [2005] SGHC 52

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Traffic accident occurred between vehicles driven by the third party and the defendant.
Defendant convicted under section 65 of the Road Traffic Act for driving without due care or reasonable consideration.
Judgment issued by the High Court.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of evidence of defendant's criminal conviction
    • Outcome: The court held that the evidence of the defendant's criminal conviction was admissible under Section 45A of the Evidence Act.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of Section 45A of the Evidence Act
    • Related Cases:
      • [1943] 1 KB 587
  2. Contributory negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the third party was not contributorily negligent.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant wholly liable for the accident due to negligence.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o RangasamySingapore High CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 628SingaporeCited regarding the credibility of witnesses and the caution with which flawless evidence should be treated.
Hollington v F Hewthorn and Company, LimitedEnglish Court of AppealYes[1943] 1 KB 587England and WalesCited as the precedent that was reversed by Section 45A of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of criminal convictions in civil proceedings.
Goody v Odhams Press LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1967] 1 QB 333England and WalesCited in reference to Lord Denning's opinion on Hollington v Hewthorn.
Barclays Bank Ltd v ColeEnglish Court of AppealYes[1967] 2 QB 738England and WalesCited in reference to Lord Denning's opinion on Hollington v Hewthorn.
McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West MidlandsEnglish Court of AppealYes[1980] QB 283England and WalesCited in reference to Lord Denning's opinion on Hollington v Hewthorn.
Land Securities Plc v Westminster City CouncilEnglish High CourtYes[1993] 1 WLR 286England and WalesCited regarding the mixed reception of Hollington v Hewthorn within English case law.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands PoliceHouse of LordsYes[1982] AC 529England and WalesCited regarding the mixed reception of Hollington v Hewthorn within English case law.
Jorgensen v News Media (Auckland) LimitedNew Zealand Court of AppealYes[1969] NZLR 961New ZealandCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Mickelberg v The Director of the Perth MintSupreme Court of Western AustraliaYes[1986] WAR 365AustraliaCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Demeter v British Pacific Life Insurance CoOntario Court of AppealYes(1983) 150 DLR (3d) 249CanadaCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Ramanathan Chelliah v PenyuntingMalaysian High CourtYes[1998] 2 CLJ 691MalaysiaCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Anwar bin Ibrahim v Abdul KhalidMalaysian High CourtYes[2001] 5 MLJ 48MalaysiaCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Chock Kek Ling v Patt Hup Transport Co LtdMalaysian High CourtYes[1966] 1 MLJ 120MalaysiaCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Lim Ah Toh v Ang Yau CheeMalaysian High CourtYes[1969] 2 MLJ 194MalaysiaCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Chang Chong Foo v ShivanathanMalaysian High CourtYes[1992] 2 MLJ 473MalaysiaCited as a Commonwealth precedent where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed.
Choo Michael v Loh Shak MowSingapore High CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR 584SingaporeCited as a case where the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn was not followed, and for holding that a defendant's conviction is admissible evidence of guilt.
PP v Heah Lian KhinSingapore High CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR 609SingaporeCited regarding the limited scope of Section 45A of the Evidence Act.
Stupple v Royal Insurance Co LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1971] 1 QB 50England and WalesCited regarding the weight to be given to a defendant's criminal conviction.
Wauchope v MordecaiEnglish Court of AppealYes[1970] 1 WLR 317England and WalesCited in reference to Lord Denning's opinion on the weight of a criminal conviction.
Phoenix Marine Inc v China Ocean Shipping CoEnglish High CourtYes[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 682England and WalesCited in reference to Lord Denning's opinion on the weight of a criminal conviction.
Fardon v Harcourt-RivingtonHouse of LordsYes(1932) 146 LT 391England and WalesCited for the principle that negligence depends on the facts and that people must guard against reasonable probabilities, not fantastic possibilities.
Ng Swee Eng v Ang Oh ChuanSingapore High CourtYes[2002] 4 SLR 425SingaporeCited for the application of the principles from Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington in the local context.
Banque Nationale de Paris v Tan NancySingapore High CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR 29SingaporeCited regarding the importance of testing admissions in cross-examination.
Lim Yam Teck v Lim Swee ChiangSingapore High CourtYes[1979] 1 MLJ 162SingaporeCited as a contrasting case where the plaintiff's explanation for pleading guilty was accepted.
Noor Mohamed v PalaniveluMalaysian High CourtYes[1956] MLJ 114MalaysiaCited regarding the weight of a guilty plea in a criminal charge.
Joseph Eva, Limited v ReevesEnglish Court of AppealYes[1938] 2 KB 393England and WalesCited for the principle that a driver entering a cross-roads with the traffic lights green in his favour is under no obligation to assume that another vehicle will disobey the red light.
Loh Saik Pew v Tan Huat ChanSingapore Court of AppealYes[1975–1977] SLR 189SingaporeCited as a contrasting case where the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to keep a lookout.
Watkins v MoffattN/AYes[1970] RTR 205N/ACited as a case where the court found in favour of a driver travelling along a major road.
Walsh v RedfernN/AYes[1970] RTR 201N/ACited as a case where the court found in favour of a driver travelling along a major road.
Hopwood Homes Ltd v KennerdineN/AYes[1975] RTR 82N/ACited as a case where the court found in favour of a driver travelling along a major road.
Truscott v McLarenN/AYes[1982] RTR 34N/ACited as a case where the court found that the driver travelling along a major road was liable for contributory negligence.
Tan Bernice Amelia v Loh Chee SongSingapore High CourtYes[2000] SGHC 197SingaporeCited regarding the defendant being legally represented.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 45A Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 65B of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Traffic accident
  • Negligence
  • Contributory negligence
  • Driving without due care
  • Right of way
  • Traffic junction
  • Evidence Act
  • Road Traffic Act
  • Credibility of witnesses
  • Statement of Facts

15.2 Keywords

  • Traffic accident
  • Negligence
  • Evidence
  • Driving
  • Conviction
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence80
Automobile Accidents75
Traffic Accident Law70
Personal Injury70
Evidence60
Civil Procedure30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Evidence
  • Tort
  • Road Traffic Law