Sivakami v Attorney-General: Assessment of Damages for Negligence and Personal Injury

In Sivakami d/o Sivanantham v Attorney-General, the Singapore High Court assessed damages for the plaintiff, a school teacher, who sustained injuries due to the defendant's negligence. The court addressed issues including pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and future medical expenses. The court awarded the plaintiff $75,354.40, accounting for 70% of the overall damages to be paid by the defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $75,354.40, accounting for 70% of the overall damages to be paid by the defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court judgment on assessment of damages for a school teacher's injury due to negligence, addressing pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and future medical expenses.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencyPartial LossLost
Denise Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Hui Shan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Genevieve of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sivakami d/o SivananthamPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Sze YaoAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Denise WongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Hui ShanAttorney-General’s Chambers
GenevieveAttorney-General’s Chambers
Seenivasan LalitaYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation
Perumal AthithamYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff injured her right ankle after climbing out of a ventilation gap and jumping 3.7 meters.
  2. Plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for her injuries.
  3. Interlocutory judgment was entered for 70% of overall damages to be paid by the defendant.
  4. Plaintiff was advised to undergo ankle fusion surgery but postponed it due to fear of complications.
  5. Plaintiff's work performance remained stable, with consistent 'C' performance gradings.
  6. Plaintiff was promoted to grade GEO1A3 in October 2009.
  7. Plaintiff's Current Estimated Potential fluctuated between P6 to P8, averaging as P7.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sivakami d/o Sivanantham v Attorney-General, Suit No. 992 of 2009/F-NA 2 of 2012, [2012] SGHCR 5

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff injured at Zhangde Primary School
Plaintiff advised to undergo ankle fusion surgery
Plaintiff promoted to grade GEO1A3
Interlocutory judgment entered for 70% of damages to be assessed
Plaintiff advised to undergo ankle fusion surgery by Dr. Inderjeet Singh Rikhraj
Psychiatric assessment by Dr. Angelina Chan
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assessment of Damages for Pain and Suffering
    • Outcome: The court awarded damages for pain and suffering arising from orthopaedic injuries and nominal damages for psychiatric distress.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Impact of plaintiff's reluctance to undergo medical treatment
      • Valuation of orthopaedic injuries
      • Valuation of psychiatric disorders
    • Related Cases:
      • [1993] 3 SLR 355
      • [2000] SGHC 248
      • [1993] SGHC 277
  2. Assessment of Damages for Loss of Future Earnings
    • Outcome: The court awarded nominal damages for loss of future earnings.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Impact of injuries on promotion prospects
      • Authority of Current Estimated Potential grading
      • Proof of real assessable loss
  3. Assessment of Damages for Future Medical Expenses
    • Outcome: The court awarded damages for future medical expenses, including ankle fusion surgery and related procedures.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Contingency of future surgeries
      • Reasonableness of medical expenses
      • Causation of future medical needs
  4. Mitigation of Damages
    • Outcome: The court reduced the award for pain and suffering due to the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in undergoing ankle fusion surgery.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonableness of plaintiff's actions
      • Impact of plaintiff's refusal of medical treatment
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 395
  5. Loss of Earning Capacity
    • Outcome: The court did not award damages for loss of earning capacity.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Risk of loss of present employment
      • Disadvantage in the open employment market

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Au Yeong Wing Loong v Chew Hai Ban & Anor t/a Kian Heng Hiring Equipments CoHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR 355SingaporeCited regarding the quantification of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
Denis Matthew Harte v Dr Tan Hun Hoe & AnorHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 248SingaporeCited as an example where two distinct awards were made for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
Marcroft v ScruttonsEnglish Court of AppealYes[1954] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 395England and WalesCited regarding the plaintiff's duty to mitigate loss by undergoing reasonable medical treatment.
Zakaria Bin Putra Ali v Low Keng Huat Construction Company (S) Pte Ltd and OrsHigh CourtYes[1993] SGHC 277SingaporeCited as a baseline for determining the award for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities arising from ankle injury and osteoarthritis.
Seek Tiong Hock v Heng William (Wang William) and AnotherDistrict CourtYes[2005] SGDC 239SingaporeCited regarding awards for scarring.
Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chew HockCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 674SingaporeCited regarding the requirement to prove a recognizable psychiatric illness.
Mohamad Aliman bin Kassim v Zulkifli bin Abdul LatibN/AYes[2012] Mallal’s Digest 1588SingaporeCited regarding awards for pain and suffering arising from ankle fractures.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ankle fusion surgery
  • Current Estimated Potential
  • Loss of amenities
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder
  • Orthopaedic injuries
  • Psychiatric disorders
  • Mitigation of loss
  • Loss of future earnings
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Medical Review Board

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • personal injury
  • damages
  • assessment
  • ankle injury
  • school teacher
  • mitigation
  • loss of earnings
  • medical expenses

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Damages Assessment90
Assessment of Damages90
Mitigation of Loss80
Personal Injury75
Negligence60
Breach of Duty of Care50
Civil Litigation50
Medical Negligence40
Evidence40
Civil Practice30
Civil Procedure30
Contracts20
Contract Law20
Automobile Accidents20
Appeal15

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Personal Injury
  • Damages Assessment
  • Negligence