Er Kee Jeng v PP: Motor Vehicle Insurance, Third-Party Risks & Compensation Act, Cancellation of Policy
In Er Kee Jeng v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Er Kee Jeng against his conviction under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act for permitting another person to use his car without a valid third-party insurance policy. The High Court, led by Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurance policy had been validly cancelled for non-payment of premium and was not in force at the time of the offense. The court also found that the appellant had not exercised reasonable care to ensure that there was a valid insurance policy in force.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Er Kee Jeng was convicted under s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act for permitting the use of a car without valid insurance. The High Court dismissed his appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction Upheld | Won | Nor' Ashikin Samdin of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Er Kee Jeng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nor' Ashikin Samdin | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Peter Ong Lip Cheng | Peter Ong & Raymond Tan |
4. Facts
- Appellant was the registered owner of the car.
- Appellant took a loan of $96,000 from OCBC Bank to purchase the car.
- A third-party risks insurance policy was initially taken out but subsequently cancelled for non-payment of premium.
- Teck Wei was responsible for taking out the insurance policy with NTUC through Jin-Shi.
- Appellant did not pay the remaining sum of $581 for the insurance premium.
- Jin-Shi made advance payment of the premiums to NTUC.
- NTUC cancelled the policy after the appellant failed to make payment despite receiving letters.
5. Formal Citations
- Er Kee Jeng v Public Prosecutor, MA 109/2005, [2006] SGHC 45
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant purchased car from Teck Wei Auto Trading, taking a loan from Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited. | |
| Third-party risks insurance policy taken out for the car. | |
| Jin-Shi allowed NTUC to deduct the sum of $1,773 from its company account. | |
| Jin-Shi sent a letter to the appellant giving him seven days to make payment on pain of the termination of the Policy. | |
| NTUC sent the appellant a letter giving him seven days to make due payment. | |
| NTUC cancelled the policy with effect from this date. | |
| NTUC refunded Jin-Shi the sum of $1,294. | |
| NTUC notified the appellant of the cancellation through another letter. | |
| Teo permitted Eric Tan Cher Peng to use the car, which was involved in a minor accident. | |
| Appellant was charged with permitting the car to be used without valid insurance. | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Insurance Policy Cancellation
- Outcome: The court held that the insurance policy was validly cancelled due to non-payment of premium, and the non-surrender of the certificate of insurance did not invalidate the cancellation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-payment of premium
- Notice of cancellation
- Surrender of certificate of insurance
- Agency Relationship
- Outcome: The court held that Jin-Shi acted as an agent for NTUC, the insurer, rather than for the appellant, the insured.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agent for insured
- Agent for insurer
- Statutory Liability of Insurer
- Outcome: The court held that the insurer's statutory liability under Section 9 of the MVA does not deem a cancelled policy to be 'in force' for the purposes of criminal liability under Section 3(1) of the MVA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Third-party risks
- Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Insurance Litigation
- Motor Vehicle Accidents
11. Industries
- Automotive
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 788 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that findings of fact based on the assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses should be upheld unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that findings of fact based on the assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses should be upheld unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence. |
| National Employers’ Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Globe Trawlers Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | [1991] SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the case from one where insurance brokers were agents for the insured rather than the insurer. |
| Newsholme Brothers v Road Transport and General Insurance Company, Limited | Court of King's Bench | No | [1929] 2 KB 356 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to the principle that a broker who completes the proposal form is not acting as an agent of the insurer but the insured. |
| Stewart Ashley James v PP | High Court | No | [1996] 3 SLR 426 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that no assistance may be derived from contemporary legislative debates on the MVA. |
| Nippon Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Sim Jin Hwee | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 806 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Section 9 of the MVA creates a statutory relationship between the insurer and the third party, which exists irrespective of the contractual position vis-à-vis the insurer and the insured. |
| PP v Lee Hong Hwee | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the very raison d’etre of mandatory insurance under the MVA is to protect third-party road users, not the insured driver. |
| Chandara Sagaran s/o Rengayah v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 79 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 3(1) was enacted not only to ensure that victims of traffic accidents are not left without any compensation where the motorist is unable to satisfy judgment, but also to deter irresponsible motorists from driving without the appropriate insurance coverage. |
| Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Limited v Morrison | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1942] 2 KB 53 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that s 9 was intended to compel insurers to share the responsibility of ensuring adequate protection against third-party risks with motorists. |
| Salleh bin Awang v PP | High Court | No | [1978] 2 MLJ 212 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the criminal liability of the motorist ought to be dependent only upon the operation of the insurance policy, without consideration of the protection afforded by the statute to third parties. |
| Velusamy v PP | High Court | Yes | [1974] 1 MLJ 15 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that s 79 merely provided that the restriction in the policy should have no effect with respect to the civil liability of the driver and did not affect his criminal liability. |
| Lim Cheng Wai v PP | High Court | No | [1988] SLR 731 | Singapore | Cited for obiter dicta regarding policies voidable at the option of insurers. |
| Durrant v Maclaren | Divisional Court | No | [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 70 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that insurers would be held to their contracts of insurance until such time as they should avoid them. |
| Goodbarne v Buck | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1940] 1 KB 107 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a policy, from the time when the proposal form was incorrectly filled up, was voidable, but that does not mean that it was void. |
| Adams v Dunne | Queen’s Bench Division | Yes | [1978] RTR 281 | England and Wales | Cited as following Durrant v Maclaren. |
| PP v Kum Chee Cheong | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 231 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the obligation is placed absolutely and squarely on users of motor vehicles to take out such policies of insurance. |
| M V Balakrishnan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 416 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the proper defence to a charge under s 3(1) would be that reasonable care had been exercised. |
| Tan Koon Swan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 126 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. |
| Ho Soo Kin v PP | High Court | No | [1999] 1 SLR 833 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case with a similar sentence. |
| Sriekaran s/o Thanka Samy v PP | High Court | No | [1998] 3 SLR 402 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case with a similar sentence. |
| Tan Tok Nam v Pan Global Insurance Sdn Bhd | High Court | Yes | [2002] 3 MLJ 742 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that where the insurer, despite being entitled to avoid the policy, is liable to the third party under the equivalent of s 9, it is always open to the insurers to sue their then insured for indemnity for breach of policy conditions. |
| PP v Er Kee Jeng | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 271 | Singapore | The decision below, where the district judge's findings of fact and opinion were referenced and upheld. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 9(1) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 9(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 4(9) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 15 | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 16 | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) s 29(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1930 (c 43) | England and Wales |
| Road Traffic Act 1934 (c 50) s 10(1) | England and Wales |
| Road Traffic Ordinance 1958 (No 49 of 1958) (M’sia) s 79 | Malaysia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Third-party risks
- Insurance policy
- Cancellation
- Premium
- Certificate of insurance
- Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act
- Agent
- Registered owner
15.2 Keywords
- Motor vehicle insurance
- Third-party risks
- Cancellation of insurance policy
- Non-payment of premium
- Certificate of insurance
- Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act
- Agency
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Law | 80 |
| Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy | 70 |
| Automobile Insurance | 60 |
| Insurance | 50 |
| Agency Law | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Automobile Accidents | 20 |
| Pleadings | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Insurance
- Motor Vehicle Law
- Agency