Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chiew Hock: Negligence, Duty of Care & Psychiatric Harm

In Ngiam Kong Seng and Quek Sai Wah v Lim Chiew Hock, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the appeal against the High Court's decision. The case involved a negligence claim by Ngiam Kong Seng, who sustained severe injuries in a traffic accident allegedly caused by Lim Chiew Hock, and a claim by Quek Sai Wah, Ngiam's wife, for clinical depression resulting from the accident and Lim's subsequent conduct. The court found that Ngiam failed to prove Lim's negligence and that Lim did not owe Quek a duty of care regarding her psychiatric harm. The court applied the two-stage test from Spandeck Engineering to determine the existence of a duty of care.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal case concerning negligence, duty of care, and psychiatric harm claims arising from a traffic accident.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ngiam Kong SengAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Quek Sai WahAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lim Chiew HockRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Cecilia HendrickKelvin Chia Partnership
Wee Ai Tin JayneKelvin Chia Partnership
Anthony WeeUnited Legal Alliance LLC
Quentin LohRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. Ngiam Kong Seng was injured in a traffic accident on 27 January 2004.
  2. Lim Chiew Hock was the driver of the taxi involved in the accident.
  3. Ngiam Kong Seng sustained severe injuries, rendering him a tetraplegic.
  4. Quek Sai Wah, Ngiam's wife, claimed to suffer clinical depression as a result of the accident and Lim's conduct.
  5. Lim initially presented himself as a helpful bystander.
  6. The claim against the taxi owner, CityCab Pte Ltd, was withdrawn before trial.
  7. The trial judge found Ngiam's evidence inconsistent and accepted Lim's version of events.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ngiam Kong Seng and Another v Lim Chiew Hock, CA 38/2007, [2008] SGCA 23

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Traffic accident occurred involving Ngiam Kong Seng and Lim Chiew Hock.
Defence filed by Lim Chiew Hock.
Appellants’ skeletal submissions filed.
Ngiam Kong Seng v CitiCab Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 38 decision issued.
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the first appellant failed to prove that the respondent's negligence caused the accident.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Causation
      • Duty of care
      • Breach of duty
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] SGHC 38
      • [2007] 4 SLR 100
      • [1983] 1 AC 410
  2. Duty of Care for Psychiatric Harm
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the second appellant regarding her claim for psychiatric harm.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Factual foreseeability
      • Proximity
      • Public policy considerations
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR 100
      • [1983] 1 AC 410
      • [1996] AC 155

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for personal injuries
  2. Damages for psychiatric harm

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ngiam Kong Seng v CitiCab Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 38SingaporeCited as the decision of the trial judge which was being appealed.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR 100SingaporeCited for setting out the applicable test in Singapore for ascertaining the existence of a duty of care in cases involving claims for pure economic loss and cases involving claims for personal injuries and/or physical damage.
Anns v Merton London Borough CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1978] AC 728EnglandCited for the two-stage test for establishing a duty of care.
McLoughlin v O’BrianHouse of LordsYes[1983] 1 AC 410EnglandCited as a leading decision regarding claims in negligence for psychiatric harm.
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire PoliceHouse of LordsYes[1992] 1 AC 310EnglandCited as a decision following McLoughlin and elaborating on the distinction between primary and secondary victims.
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire PoliceHouse of LordsYes[1999] 2 AC 455EnglandCited as a decision following McLoughlin and Alcock.
Page v SmithHouse of LordsYes[1996] AC 155EnglandCited for drawing a distinction between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric harm cases, but the court disagreed with the approach.
Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe PhingHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR 317SingaporeCited as a Singapore High Court decision that analyzed the duty of care in psychiatric harm cases in detail, applying the principles laid down in McLoughlin.
Jub'il bin Mohamed Taib Taral v Sunway Lagoon Sdn BhdHigh CourtYes[2001] 6 MLJ 669MalaysiaCited for applying the principles laid down in McLoughlin.
Bourhill v YoungHouse of LordsYes[1943] AC 92EnglandCited in Zainab Binti Ismail v Marimuthu.
Hambrook v Stokes BrothersCourt of AppealYes[1925] 1 KB 141EnglandCited in Zainab Binti Ismail v Marimuthu.
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh v Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan SinghHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR 843SingaporeCited as a more recent decision of the Singapore High Court where there was some discussion of the issue.
van Soest v Residual Health Management UnitNew Zealand Court of AppealYes[2000] 1 NZLR 179New ZealandCited for contrasting views on the approach in McLoughlin.
Donoghue v StevensonHouse of LordsYes[1932] AC 562ScotlandCited for Lord Atkin's neighbour principle.
McFarlane v Tayside Health BoardHouse of LordsYes[2000] 2 AC 59EnglandCited for reference to legal policy.
Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v Football Association LtdCourt of AppealYes[1971] Ch 591EnglandCited for Lord Denning's observation on public policy.
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound)Privy CouncilYes[1961] AC 388EnglandCited for the principle that the essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen.
Dulieu v White & SonsEnglish High CourtYes[1901] 2 KB 669EnglandCited as a case where the plaintiff was permitted to recover for nervous shock caused by her apprehension of physical injury.
Wilkinson v DowntonEnglish High CourtYes[1897] 2 QB 57EnglandCited as authority for the principle that wilfully communicating false information is actionable if it causes physical, including psychiatric, harm.
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[2007] 3 WLR 876EnglandCited for the observation that Page does not appear to have caused any practical difficulties.
Corr v IBC Vehicles LtdHouse of LordsYes[2008] 2 WLR 499EnglandCited as a recent House of Lords decision where Page was referred to and criticism of Page was acknowledged.
Hinz v BerryEnglish Court of AppealYes[1970] 2 QB 40EnglandCited for the requirement that the plaintiff must prove that he or she has suffered what has often been termed a recognisable psychiatric illness.
JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v TeofoongwonglcloongCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR 460SingaporeCited for the court's ultimate supervisory responsibility of ensuring that expert evidence is defensible as well as grounded in logic and common sense.
The Council of the Shire of Sutherland v HeymanAustralian High CourtYes(1984–1985) 157 CLR 424AustraliaCited for Deane J's analysis of proximity.
Caparo Industries Plc v DickmanHouse of LordsYes[1990] 2 AC 605EnglandCited for the three-part test for determining the existence of a duty of care.
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plcHouse of LordsYes[2007] 1 AC 181EnglandCited as an example of the law in England remaining in a state of flux.
Cooper v HobartCanadian Supreme CourtYes(2001) 206 DLR (4th) 193CanadaCited as an example of the position in Canada being similar to that presently applicable in Singapore.
Odhavji Estate v WoodhouseCanadian Supreme CourtYes(2003) 233 DLR (4th) 193CanadaCited as an example of the position in Canada being similar to that presently applicable in Singapore.
Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services BoardCanadian Supreme CourtYes(2005) 259 DLR (4th) 676CanadaCited as an example of the position in Canada being similar to that presently applicable in Singapore.
Childs v DesormeauxCanadian Supreme CourtYes(2006) 266 DLR (4th) 257CanadaCited as an example of the position in Canada being similar to that presently applicable in Singapore.
Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v BDCanadian Supreme CourtYes(2007) 284 DLR (4th) 682CanadaCited as an example of the position in Canada being similar to that presently applicable in Singapore.
Jaensch v CoffeyAustralian High CourtYes(1984) 155 CLR 549AustraliaCited for Deane J's observations.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR 853SingaporeCited for the statement that the requirement of reasonable foreseeability from a factual perspective will almost always be satisfied.
Farrell v Avon Heath AuthorityEnglish High CourtYes[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep Med 458EnglandCited as a case where the plaintiff was told of the death of his newborn child, but the court held that it extended the boundaries of recovery for psychiatric harm erroneously and therefore ought not to be followed.
Tame v New South WalesAustralian High CourtYes(2002) 211 CLR 317AustraliaCited as a case where the Australian High Court effected reform in this aspect of the tort of negligence through the common law.
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty LtdAustralian High CourtYes(2003) 77 ALJR 1205AustraliaCited for McHugh J's rationale for s 4 of the 1944 NSW Act.
Janvier v SweeneyEnglish Court of AppealYes[1919] 2 KB 316EnglandCited as relating to a special species of intentional torts, where the defendant wilfully does an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff.
Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram v Naresh Kumar MehtaSingapore High CourtYes[2001] 4 SLR 454SingaporeCited as relating to a special species of intentional torts, where the defendant wilfully does an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff.
Brown v The Mount Barker Soldiers’ Hospital IncorporatedSupreme Court of South AustraliaYes[1934] SASR 128AustraliaCited as a case where a possible remedy for psychiatric harm resulting from the communication of information could exist in situations where there is a professional relationship between the parties.
Furniss v FitchettSupreme Court of New ZealandYes[1958] NZLR 396New ZealandCited as a case where the Supreme Court of New Zealand allowed a plaintiff to succeed in an action against her doctor for nervous shock caused by his negligent disclosure to her husband of his opinion as to her mental stability.
Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong KongPrivy CouncilYes[1988] AC 175Hong KongCited for the concept of close and direct relations.
Mount Isa Mines Limited v PuseyAustralian High CourtYes(1970) 125 CLR 383AustraliaCited for the traditional view in relation to causal proximity.
Caparo Industries Plc v DickmanCourt of AppealYes[1989] QB 653EnglandCited for Bingham LJ's statement on the closeness and directness of the relationship between the parties.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (c 93) (UK)United Kingdom
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (NSW)Australia
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)Australia
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1956 (NT)Australia
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT)Australia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Psychiatric harm
  • Tetraplegic
  • Factual foreseeability
  • Proximity
  • Public policy
  • Recognisable psychiatric illness
  • Spandeck Engineering test
  • McLoughlin factors
  • Primary victim
  • Secondary victim

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Psychiatric harm
  • Traffic accident
  • Singapore law
  • Spandeck test
  • McLoughlin
  • Causation
  • Proximity
  • Policy considerations

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence95
Duty of Care90
Psychiatric Harm85
Torts75
Traffic Accident70
Personal Injury60
Automobile Accidents40
Assessment of Damages30
Measure of Damages30
Evidence Law20
Civil Procedure20
Evidence20
Witnesses10
Civil Appeals10
Appeal10
Judgments and Orders10

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Negligence
  • Duty of Care
  • Psychiatric Injury