Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh: Medical Examination Order & Stay Application in Negligence & Breach of Contract Claim
In Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh and Gleneagles Hospital, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Gleneagles Hospital for an order compelling Li Siu Lun to undergo a psychiatric examination and a stay of proceedings pending the examination's completion. Li had brought a claim against Gleneagles alleging conspiracy and breach of contract/duty of care related to the alteration of his medical records. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Sarah Shi, granted a stay of the action pending completion of a reasonable psychiatric examination, finding that Li's mental condition was relevant to the assessment of damages.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Action stayed pending completion of psychiatric examination.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application by Gleneagles Hospital for Li Siu Lun to undergo psychiatric evaluation. The court granted a stay pending completion of the examination.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Looi Kok Poh | Defendant | Individual | Settled | Settled | |
| Gleneagles Hospital | Defendant | Corporation | Application granted | Won | |
| Li Siu Lun | Plaintiff | Individual | Action stayed pending completion of psychiatric examination | Stayed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sarah Shi | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Li claimed Gleneagles altered his medical records to assist Dr. Looi in covering up negligence.
- Li sought aggravated damages for anger, outrage, and distress allegedly suffered due to Gleneagles' actions.
- Li alleged depression in his AEIC, supported by a psychiatric expert's report.
- Gleneagles argued Li's mental condition was relevant due to his claim for aggravated damages.
- Gleneagles sought a medical examination to rebut Li's allegation of depression.
- An interlocutory judgment on liability has been entered for Li against Gleneagles.
5. Formal Citations
- Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh and another, Suit No 245 of 2009, Summons No 1936 of 2012, [2012] SGHCR 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Li suffered an injury to his right hand. | |
| Dr. Looi performed surgery on Li at Gleneagles Hospital. | |
| Li's Statement of Claim was filed. | |
| Li's AEIC was affirmed. | |
| Li's AEIC was affirmed, claiming depression. | |
| AEIC by Li's psychiatric expert was affirmed. | |
| Gleneagles filed objections to Li's expert's AEIC. | |
| Gleneagles proposed that Li be submitted to an examination by a psychiatric expert. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Medical Examination Order
- Outcome: The court has the power to order a stay of proceedings pending completion of a medical examination if the mental or physical condition of a party is relevant to the proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonableness of request
- Reasonableness of refusal
- Relevance of mental condition
- Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court has the power to order a stay of proceedings pending completion of a medical examination if the mental or physical condition of a party is relevant to the proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar
- Discretion of court
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Aggravated Damages
- Punitive/Exemplary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Statutory Duty
- Duty of Care
- Fiduciary Duty
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Medical Negligence
- Personal Injury
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edmeades v Thames Board Mills Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1969] 2 QB 67 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has inherent jurisdiction to order a stay in appropriate circumstances where a medical examination is requested. |
| Jackson v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd and Another | Unknown | Yes | Jackson v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has inherent jurisdiction to order a stay in appropriate circumstances. |
| Edwards-Tubb v J D Wetherspoon plc | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 1 WLR 1373 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that requiring a claimant to submit to a medical examination is intrusive and must be justified as necessary. |
| Lane v Willis & anor appeal | Unknown | Yes | [1972] 1 WLR 326 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff who sues for damages based on his medical condition must afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to have him medically examined. |
| Hookham v Wiggins Teape Fine Papers Limited | Unknown | Yes | [1995] PIQR p392 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff who sues for damages for personal injury must afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to have him medically examined. |
| Starr v National Coal Board | Unknown | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 63 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of balancing the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity and the defendant's right to defend himself in litigation. |
| Lo Pui Sang and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and other appeals | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 754 | Singapore | Cited to define the term 'personal liberty' in the local context. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 52 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale and test for the court's power to punish for contempt. |
| Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should not reject unopposed expert evidence that appears defensible. |
| Sek Kim Wah v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1987] SLR 107 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is not obliged to accept expert evidence merely because it is unchallenged. |
| Prescott v Bulldog Tools Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 3 All ER 869 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court may exercise its discretion against granting a stay when a medical examination would be oppressive. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 32 r 9(1) of the Rules |
| O 1 r 4(1) of the Rules |
| O 52 of the Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) para 19 | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 31(2)(c) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 50(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 51(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 52(1B)(b)(iii) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Medical Examination
- Stay of Proceedings
- Aggravated Damages
- Psychiatric Examination
- Reasonableness
- Bodily Integrity
- Mental Condition
- Depression
- Distress
15.2 Keywords
- Medical Examination
- Stay of Proceedings
- Aggravated Damages
- Psychiatric Examination
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Medical Negligence | 70 |
| Psychiatric Injury | 60 |
| Personal Injury | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Medical Law
- Personal Injury
- Contract Law