Ng Chee Wee v Tan Chin Seng: Assessment of Damages for Personal Injuries

In Ng Chee Wee v Tan Chin Seng, the Singapore High Court heard appeals regarding the Assistant Registrar's assessment of damages for personal injuries sustained by Ng Chee Wee due to Tan Chin Seng's negligence. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and allowed the plaintiff's appeal in part, varying the multiplicand for pre-trial loss of earnings and loss of future earnings. The court upheld most of the AR's original assessment, including awards for pre-trial medical expenses, transport expenses, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part; multiplicand for pre-trial loss of earnings and loss of future earnings varied.

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 personal injuries sustained by Ng Chee Wee due to Tan Chin Seng's negligence, including special and general damages.

1.7 Decision Date

27 February 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ng Chee Wee	Plaintiff, Respondent	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	N. Srinivasan of Hoh Law Corporation
Tan Chin Seng	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Low Tiang Hock of Low & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Vinodh Coomaraswamy	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
N. Srinivasan	Hoh Law Corporation
Low Tiang Hock	Low & Co

4. Facts

The plaintiff sustained several injuries, including a degloving injury to his right foot, right frontotemporal subdural haemorrhage, and a closed fracture to his neck.
The plaintiff commenced proceedings to secure compensation for his injuries from the defendant.
The Assistant Registrar assessed the defendant’s loss and damage at $956,599.03.
The plaintiff was first treated in NUH where he underwent a left latissimus dorsi free vascularised flap procedure to save the degloved part of his foot.
The plaintiff sought treatment from Raffles after the initial phase of treatment at NUH.
The AR awarded the plaintiff interest at 3% per annum on special damages and at 6% per annum on the pain and suffering award from the date of service of the writ to 31 December 2007.
The AR awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $45,000 including GST but not including disbursements.

5. Formal Citations

Ng Chee Wee v Tan Chin Seng, Suit No 302 of 2004 (Registrar's Appeal No 320, 323 and 333 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 54

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-06-29	Lorry collided into motorcycle ridden by the plaintiff.
2004-04-16	Proceedings commenced to secure compensation for injuries.
2004-10-04	Interlocutory judgment obtained against the defendant.
2012-07-31	Assistant Registrar assessed damages.
2012-08-03	Defendant appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s order.
2012-08-07	Plaintiff cross-appealed against parts of the Assistant Registrar’s order.
2012-08-10	Plaintiff filed a second appeal.
2012-08-30	Appeals heard before the judge.
2012-08-31	Defendant’s appeal dismissed and plaintiff’s appeal allowed in part.
2013-02-28	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Assessment of Damages
- Outcome: The court varied the multiplicand for pre-trial loss of earnings and loss of future earnings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Pre-trial medical expenses
  - Pre-trial transport expenses
  - Pre-trial loss of earnings
  - Pain and suffering
  - Future medical expenses
  - Future transport expenses
  - Loss of future earnings
  - Loss of earning capacity
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] SGHC 54
  - [1980] AC 174
  - [2003] 4 SLR(R) 682
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543
  - [1983] 1 All ER 824
  - [2004] SGHC 28
  - [2012] SGHCR 5
  - [2004] 4 SLR(R) 675
  - [2002] 1 SLR(R) 934
  - [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 395
  - [2006] 3 SLR(R) 208
  - [2008] 4 SLR(R) 825
  - [2011] 3 SLR 610
  - [2005] 4 SLR(R) 740
  - [2003] 4 SLR(R) 225
  - [2010] 3 SLR 587
  - [1977] 1 All ER 9
  - [1977] I.C.R. 635
  - [2001] 3 All ER 289
  - [1994] 1 SLR(R) 340
  - [1985-1986] SLR(R) 799
  - [2008] 1 SLR(R) 178
  - [1983-1984] SLR(R) 723
  - [2003] 3 SLR(R) 601
  - [2009] SGHC 191
  - [2012] 1 SLR 131
  - [1997] SGHC 289
Mitigation of Damages
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in refusing to have his right leg amputated below the knee.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reasonableness of refusing medical treatment
- Related Cases:
  - [1983] 1 All ER 824
  - [2004] SGHC 28
  - [2012] SGHCR 5
  - [2002] 1 SLR(R) 934
Interest
- Outcome: The court agreed with the AR that interest should be awarded only up until 31 December 2007.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1994] 1 SLR(R) 340
  - [1985-1986] SLR(R) 799
  - [2008] 1 SLR(R) 178

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Personal Injury Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority	House of Lords	Yes	[1980] AC 174	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the availability of care under the English National Health Service and its impact on damages.
De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2003] 4 SLR(R) 682	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a person should not be expected to seek the cheapest medical treatment in an emergency.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 543	Singapore	Cited to show that the High Court's holding in De Cruz was not disturbed on appeal.
Selvanayagam v University of the West Indies	Privy Council	Yes	[1983] 1 All ER 824	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court must look at all the circumstances of the case, including medical advice, when considering whether a plaintiff acted reasonably in refusing an operation.
Ho Yiu v Lim Peng Seng	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 28	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff should undergo reasonable treatment to mitigate loss, and the court's consideration of the plaintiff's reasons for refusing surgery.
Sivakami d/o Sivanantham v Attorney-General	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHCR 5	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if a plaintiff refuses reasonable medical treatment without reasonable grounds, the defendant should not compensate for damages extending after the projected recovery time.
Ho Yiu v Lim Peng Seng	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 675	Singapore	Cited to show that the AR's finding in Ho Yiu was not disturbed on appeal to the High Court.
Karuppiah Nirmala v Singapore Bus Services Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 934	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings prior to the trial, but the multiplier can be reduced if the plaintiff fails to mitigate their loss.
Marcroft v Scruttons	N/A	Yes	[1954] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 395	N/A	Applied in Sivakami d/o Sivanantham v Attorney-General [2012] SGHCR 5 for the principle that if a plaintiff refuses reasonable medical treatment without reasonable grounds, the defendant should not compensate for damages extending after the projected recovery time.
Chong Hwa Yin (committee of person and estate of Chong Hwa Wee, mentally disordered) v Estate of Loh Hon Fock, deceased	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 208	Singapore	Cited for the principle that compensation for pain and suffering is predominantly the compensation for the pain and suffering endured while it lasts.
Tan Yu Min Winston (by his next friend Tan Cheng Tong) v Uni-Fruitveg Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 825	Singapore	Cited for the principle that damage assessment should consider the real and definable manifestations of the initiating injury, and the classification of head injuries into structural, psychological, and cognitive domains.
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 610	Singapore	Cited as a case where the plaintiff suffered similar disabilities following a motor accident and was awarded a global sum for pain and suffering in relation to her head injuries.
Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 740	Singapore	Cited as a more useful starting point for comparison, where the plaintiff suffered nerve injury and developed Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), and was awarded a sum for pain and suffering.
Ho Yiu v Lim Peng Seng	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 675	Singapore	Cited as precedent for the multiplier of 15 years for future medical expenses.
Ng Song Leng v Soh Kim Seng Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1997] SGHC 289	Singapore	Cited as precedent for the multiplier of 15 years for future medical expenses.
Choong Peng Kong v Koh Hong Son	High Court	Yes	[2003] 4 SLR(R) 225	Singapore	Cited as precedent for the multiplier of 13 years used by the AR for loss of future earnings.
Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 587	Singapore	Cited for clarifying the law on awards for loss of earning capacity, stating that loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity compensate different losses and are thus separate and distinct heads of damages.
Moeliker v A Reyrolle and Co Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1977] 1 All ER 9	N/A	Cited in Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian [2010] 3 SLR 587 for the two-stage test for loss of earning capacity.
Cook v Consolidated Fisheries Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1977] I.C.R. 635	N/A	Cited for the principle that a court may award damages for loss of earning capacity even if the plaintiff is not employed at the time of the assessment.
A and Others v The National Blood Authority and Others	N/A	Yes	[2001] 3 All ER 289	N/A	Cited for the principle that in cases where the plaintiff is not employed at the time of assessment, the question is whether there is a real risk that the plaintiff will be at a disadvantage in the open employment market because of the injury sustained in the accident.
Teo Sing Keng and another v Sim Ban Kiat	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 340	Singapore	Cited for the approach to awarding interest.
Lee Soon Beng v Wee Tiam Sing	N/A	Yes	[1985-1986] SLR(R) 799	N/A	Cited for the principle that an award of interest in a personal injury case should only compensate for being kept out of money which ought to have been paid timeously.
Tan Siew Bin Ronnie v Chin Wee Keong	N/A	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 178	N/A	Cited for the principle that the court will take into account any delay in the assessment of damages owing to no fault of the defendant in the award of interest.
Lim Cheng Wah v Ng Yaw Kim	N/A	Yes	[1983-1984] SLR(R) 723	N/A	Cited in Tan Siew Bin Ronnie v Chin Wee Keong [2008] 1 SLR(R) 178 for the principle that the court will take into account any delay in the assessment of damages owing to no fault of the defendant in the award of interest.
Nirumalan V Kanapathi Pillay v Teo Eng Chuan	N/A	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 601	N/A	Cited in Tan Siew Bin Ronnie v Chin Wee Keong [2008] 1 SLR(R) 178 for the principle that a plaintiff's claim to pre-trial interest is diminished if the plaintiff is slow to prosecute his case.
Slide & Hide System (S) Pte Ltd v Chua Seng Guan	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 191	Singapore	Cited regarding costs for the assessment.
Yip Holdings Pte Ltd v Asia Link Marine Industries Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 131	N/A	Cited regarding costs for the assessment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948	United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Assessment of damages
Special damages
General damages
Pre-trial medical expenses
Pre-trial loss of earnings
Pain and suffering
Future medical expenses
Loss of future earnings
Loss of earning capacity
Multiplier
Multiplicand
Degloving injury
Amputation
Mitigation of damages

15.2 Keywords

personal injury
damages
negligence
assessment
medical expenses
loss of earnings
pain and suffering

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Damages	95
Personal Injury	90
Assessment of Damages	85
Automobile Accidents	80
Torts	75
Civil Procedure	60
Evidence	50
Contract Law	10

16. Subjects

Personal Injury
Damages
Civil Litigation