Lee Wei Kong v Ng Siok Tong: Motor Accident, Damages Assessment for Brain Injury

In Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok Tong, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the High Court's assessment of damages for Lee Wei Kong, who sustained severe brain injuries when struck by a taxi driven by Ng Siok Tong. The interlocutory judgment had established Ng Siok Tong's 75% liability. The appeal concerned the amounts awarded for pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, future psychiatric treatment, and the appellant's mother's pre-trial loss of income. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, adjusting the damages for loss of future earnings, future psychiatric treatment, and the mother's pre-trial loss of income.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages assessment for a pedestrian injured in a motor accident. The court addressed loss of earning capacity, future psychiatric treatment, and mother's loss of income.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit)AppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
Ng Siok TongRespondentIndividualAppeal partially successfulPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Joyce FernandoEngelin Teh Practice LLC
Lim Hui YingKhattarWong
Patrick YeoKhattarWong

4. Facts

  1. The Appellant was struck by the Respondent's taxi while crossing at a pedestrian crossing.
  2. The Appellant suffered severe traumatic head injuries, including fractures and haematomas, and was in a coma for 17 days.
  3. The Appellant has permanent cognitive impairments affecting memory, concentration, and reasoning.
  4. The Appellant has speech impairment, left lateral squint, right homonymous hemianopia, and slight muscle incoordination.
  5. The Appellant suffers from impaired sphincteric control resulting in urinary and bowel urgency.
  6. The Appellant was diagnosed with organic brain syndrome and organic psychosis.
  7. The Appellant was a junior college student at the time of the accident and had aspirations to become an architect.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok Tong, Civil Appeal No 12 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 4
  2. Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok Tong, , [2010] SGHC 371

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant knocked down by Respondent's taxi
Appellant's mother's part-time employment converted to full-time
Appellant underwent tracheostomy
Appellant transferred to Tan Tock Seng Rehabilitation Centre
Appellant discharged from Tan Tock Seng Rehabilitation Centre
Appellant commenced Suit No 215 of 2006 against the Respondent
Interlocutory judgment entered in Appellant's favour
Dr. Wang first examined the Appellant
Dr. Wang concluded that the Appellant had developed organic psychosis
Appellant's father appointed as Committee of Person and Estate
Judgment reserved
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the damages for loss of future earnings, future psychiatric treatment, and the mother's pre-trial loss of income.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Loss of earning capacity
      • Loss of future earnings
      • Pain and suffering
      • Future psychiatric treatment
      • Mother's loss of income
  2. Loss of Earning Capacity vs. Loss of Future Earnings
    • Outcome: The court determined that the proper characterization of the appellant's loss was one for loss of future earnings rather than loss of earning capacity.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that certain letters were not properly admitted into evidence due to being hearsay.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Hearsay evidence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for personal injuries
  2. Loss of earning capacity
  3. Future medical expenses

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Yu Min Winston (by his next friend Tan Cheng Tong) v Uni-Fruitveg Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 825SingaporeCited as a comparable case for assessing damages for head injuries.
Toon Chee Meng Eddie v Yeap Chin HonHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 407SingaporeCited as a precedent for pain and suffering awards in cases with severe injuries.
Chong Hwa Yin (committee of person and estate of Chong Hwa Wee, mentally disordered) v Estate of Loh Hon Fock, deceasedHigh CourtYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 208SingaporeCited as a case with injuries similar to the appellant's for pain and suffering assessment.
Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda GillianCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 587SingaporeCited for the principle that the component approach is a systematic instrument to aid the court to determine a fair quantification for a particular injury or disability.
Chow Khai Hong v Tham Sek Khow and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 670SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will not interfere with an award of damages merely because it is of the opinion that a different amount might be more appropriate.
Muhamad Ilyas Bin Mirza Abdul Hamid v Kwek Khim HuiHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 12SingaporeCited as a case where the residual mental disabilities suffered by the plaintiff were significantly less severe.
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)Court of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 610SingaporeCited as a case where the court held that a total award of $110,000 to the plaintiff for pain and suffering was not manifestly excessive.
Nirumalan V Kanapathi Pillay v Teo Eng ChuanHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited as a case where a maximum of $180,000 was awarded in loss of earning capacity.
Tan Siew Bin Ronnie v Chin Wee KeongHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 178SingaporeCited as a case where an award of $100,000 for loss of earning capacity was made.
Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend Chua Wee Bee) v Koh Chai KwangHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 1037SingaporeCited as a case where the High Court substituted an award for loss of earning capacity with one for loss of future earnings.
Croke and another v Wiseman and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[1982] 1 WLR 71England and WalesCited as a case where the English Court of Appeal adopted a multiplier/multiplicand approach to determine the proper quantum of damages for loss of future earnings.
Cassel v Riverside Health AuthorityHigh Court of JusticeYes[1992] PIQR Q168England and WalesCited as a case where a multiplier/multiplicand approach was adopted for loss of future earnings.
A (suing by her litigation friend Mrs H) v Powys Local Health BoardHigh Court of JusticeYes[2007] EWHC 2996England and WalesCited as a case where a multiplier/multiplicand approach was adopted for loss of future earnings.
Almond v Leeds Western Health AuthorityHigh Court of JusticeYes[1990] 1 Med LR 370England and WalesCited as a case where the English courts took into account the plaintiff’s good family background by increasing the multiplicand beyond the average national wage.
Peh Diana and another v Tan Miang LeeHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 22SingaporeCited as a case where the courts have awarded loss of future earnings to injured plaintiffs who were young at the time of the accident and had yet to commence work at the time of the trial.
Lai Chi Kay and others v Lee Kuo ShinHigh CourtYes[1981–1982] SLR(R) 71SingaporeCited as a case where the loss of future earnings of the plaintiff had clearly crystallised because he was no longer able to work as a doctor and it was “highly improbable” that he would ever be gainfully employed.
Donnelly v JoyceQueen's BenchYes[1974] 1 QB 454England and WalesCited for the principle that the head of damage is recoverable not because it is the mother’s loss, but because it is the Appellant’s loss, being the reasonable cost of meeting the need created by the tort.
Kuan Kian Seng v Wong Choon KehHigh CourtYes[1995] SGHC 43SingaporeCited for the principle that the head of damage is recoverable not because it is the mother’s loss, but because it is the Appellant’s loss, being the reasonable cost of meeting the need created by the tort.
Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee AhHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 361SingaporeCited for the principle that an award of future medical costs, unlike loss of future earnings, should be based on life expectancy rather than the retirement age.
De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 682SingaporeCited for the principle that taking into account the vicissitudes of life, a fair multiplier would be two-thirds of the expected remaining years of life.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap 178, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Loss of future earnings
  • Pain and suffering
  • Organic brain syndrome
  • Organic psychosis
  • Multiplier
  • Multiplicand
  • Pre-trial loss of income
  • Future psychiatric treatment
  • Traumatic head injuries

15.2 Keywords

  • Motor accident
  • Brain injury
  • Damages assessment
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Loss of future earnings
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Automobile Accidents95
Personal Injury90
Negligence80
Damages Assessment75
Traffic Accident Law60
Civil Procedure40
Evidence30

16. Subjects

  • Personal Injury
  • Damages
  • Civil Procedure