Ter Yin Wei v Lim Leet Fang: Interpretation of Full and Final Settlement Clause in Discharge Voucher
In Ter Yin Wei v Lim Leet Fang, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding whether a settlement agreement for vehicle damage, reached between solicitors instructed by the respondent's workshop and the appellant's liability insurers, prejudiced the respondent's right to claim for personal injuries. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment below and entering judgment for the appellant, finding that the discharge voucher constituted a full and final settlement of all claims, including personal injury claims.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding whether a settlement for vehicle damage prejudiced the respondent's personal injury claim. The court allowed the appeal, finding the discharge voucher covered all claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ter Yin Wei | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Appellant | Won | |
| Lim Leet Fang | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Ms. Ter's vehicle collided with Mdm. Lim's vehicle.
- Mdm. Lim visited a Polyclinic and was diagnosed with whiplash and lumbar ligamental injuries.
- Mdm. Lim sent her car to the workshop and signed the usual papers which would have included a fairly standard assignment.
- The workshop instructed TKSP to pursue the repair claim.
- TKSP sent a letter of demand to Ms. Ter’s insurers, HSBCI, claiming for loss and expense.
- HSBCI sent its standard Discharge Voucher to TKSP.
- TKSP returned the duly signed DV to HSBCI; the DV was in fact not signed by Mdm Lim but by Ms Liew, a representative of the workshop.
5. Formal Citations
- Ter Yin Wei v Lim Leet Fang, District Court Appeal 40 of 2011, [2012] SGHC 82
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Motor vehicle collision occurred | |
| Accident Report filed | |
| Letter of demand sent by TKSP to HSBCI | |
| TKSP made an offer to settle at $4,491 | |
| Settlement reached between TKSP and HSBCI for $4,300 | |
| HSBCI sent Discharge Voucher to TKSP | |
| TKSP returned the signed Discharge Voucher to HSBCI | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that the settlement agreement, as embodied in the discharge voucher, constituted a full and final settlement of all claims, including personal injury claims.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Ambit of full and final settlement clause
- Effect of discharge voucher
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 798
- Kitchen Design and Advice Ltd v Lea Valley Water Co (1989) 2 Ll.L.R. 221
- O’Boyle and another v Leiper and another, The Times Law Reports, January 26 1990
- Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141
- Dattani v Trio Supermarkets Ltd [1998] IRIR 240
- [2008] SGCA 26
- Sandar Aung v Parkway Hospitals Singapore Pte Ltd (trading as Mount Elizabeth Hospital) and another [2007] 2 SLR(R) 891
- [2012] SGCA 27
- Saunders v Ford Motor Company Ltd [1970] 1 LIL.R 379
- Capon v Evans (1986) CAT 413
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for property damage
- Damages for personal injury
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Personal Injury Law
11. Industries
- Insurance
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 798 | Singapore | Distinguished; the court clarified that the case was not authority that a discharge voucher is only an acknowledgement of the receipt of a sum of money. |
| Kitchen Design and Advice Ltd v Lea Valley Water Co | N/A | Yes | Kitchen Design and Advice Ltd v Lea Valley Water Co (1989) 2 Ll.L.R. 221 | N/A | Applied; the court found the case directly on point regarding the interpretation of terms used when a claim is settled. |
| O’Boyle and another v Leiper and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | O’Boyle and another v Leiper and another, The Times Law Reports, January 26 1990 | N/A | The court referenced this case to support the view that the phrases used in the DV were more all encompassing and comprehensive. |
| Brunsden v Humphrey | N/A | Yes | Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141 | N/A | The court agreed with the learned DJ’s comments on this case. |
| Dattani v Trio Supermarkets Ltd | N/A | Yes | Dattani v Trio Supermarkets Ltd [1998] IRIR 240 | N/A | The court stated that this case must be read with care. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] SGCA 26 | Singapore | The court found Mdm Lim’s reliance on this case and arguments on the contextual approach to be misplaced. |
| Sandar Aung v Parkway Hospitals Singapore Pte Ltd (trading as Mount Elizabeth Hospital) and another | N/A | Yes | Sandar Aung v Parkway Hospitals Singapore Pte Ltd (trading as Mount Elizabeth Hospital) and another [2007] 2 SLR(R) 891 | Singapore | The court found Mdm Lim’s reliance on this case and arguments on the contextual approach to be misplaced. |
| Master Marine AS v Labroy Offshore Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 27 | Singapore | The court referenced this case to support the view that where it is a standard form for commercial circulation, the courts would usually be more restrained in their examination of the context as there is a need for contractual certainty. |
| Saunders v Ford Motor Company Ltd | N/A | Yes | Saunders v Ford Motor Company Ltd [1970] 1 LIL.R 379 | N/A | The court stated that this was not a case of a lay person being misled into signing something. |
| Capon v Evans | N/A | Yes | Capon v Evans (1986) CAT 413 | N/A | The court stated that any subjective understanding that only the property damage claim was compromised cannot have been relevant and admissible evidence, in the absence of any plea of mistake or rectification. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 22A, Rules of Court (Cap.322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discharge Voucher
- Full and final settlement
- All claims
- Personal injury claim
- Property damage claim
- Loss of use
- Settlement agreement
- Insured losses
- Uninsured losses
15.2 Keywords
- settlement
- discharge voucher
- personal injury
- property damage
- motor accident
- full and final settlement
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Compromise Agreements
- Motor Vehicle Accidents
- Insurance Claims
- Settlements