Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen: Assessment of Damages for Loss of Future Earnings and Medical Expenses in Personal Injury Case

In Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal against an award of damages made by an assistant registrar for loss of future earnings and future medical expenses. The appellant, Lai Wai Keong Eugene, sued the respondent, Loo Wei Yen, for negligence after a motor vehicle accident. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conventional approach to assessing damages and finding no basis to disturb the assistant registrar's award.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the assessment of damages for loss of future earnings and medical expenses. The court considered whether to depart from the conventional approach.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lai Wai Keong EugeneAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Loo Wei YenRespondentIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
General Insurance Association of SingaporeOtherAssociationNeutralNeutral
Consumers Association of SingaporeOtherAssociationNeutralNeutral

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
Anthony WeeUnited Legal Alliance LLC
Pak WaltanUnited Legal Alliance LLC
Desmond Tan Yen HauLee & Lee
Teo Weng KieTan Kok Quan Partnership
Charlene CheeTan Kok Quan Partnership
Linus Ng Siew HoongRobert Wang & Woo LLP
Michael Low Wan KwongCrossbows LLP

4. Facts

  1. Appellant was injured in a motorcycle accident on 12 April 2007.
  2. Respondent pleaded guilty to driving without due care and was fined.
  3. Appellant sued the respondent for negligence, and interlocutory judgment was entered.
  4. Appellant is now a paraplegic with no sensation or motor control from his upper chest downwards.
  5. The appellant produced an accounting expert report with present value calculations.
  6. The Assistant Registrar applied a multiplier of 13 for loss of future earnings and 15 for future medical expenses.
  7. The Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the conventional approach.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen, Civil Appeal No 170 of 2012, [2014] SGCA 31

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant born.
Appellant collided with a car driven by the respondent.
Appellant sued the respondent for negligence.
Hearing for the assessment of damages commenced.
Assistant Registrar's decision in Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen [2012] SGHCR 8.
Registrar’s Appeal No 273 of 2012.
Appeal first heard.
Judge’s decision reported in Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen [2013] 3 SLR 1113.
Parties heard again.
Judgment reserved.
Decision Date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assessment of Damages for Loss of Future Earnings
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conventional approach to assessing damages for loss of future earnings.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appropriate Multiplier
      • Discount for Accelerated Receipt
      • Vicissitudes of Life
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 3 SLR 1113
      • [2012] 3 SLR 1003
      • [1983–1984] SLR(R) 388
      • [1992] 1 SLR(R) 779
  2. Assessment of Damages for Future Medical Expenses
    • Outcome: The court found no reason to interfere with the Assistant Registrar's award for future medical expenses.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appropriate Multiplier
      • Life Expectancy

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for negligence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei YenHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 1113SingaporeCited as the decision from which the appeal arose.
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei YenHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHCR 8SingaporeCited as the Assistant Registrar's decision.
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 1003SingaporeCited for the argument that the court could depart from the conventional approach in assessing damages for loss of future earnings.
Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) LtdUnknownYes[1983–1984] SLR(R) 388SingaporeCited as precedent for applying the conventional approach.
Tay Cheng Yan v Tock Hua Bin and anotherUnknownYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 779SingaporeCited as precedent for applying the conventional approach.
Katijah Binti Abdullah v Lee Leong Toh & AnotherUnknownYes[1940] MLJ 87MalaysiaCited as an example of a case where damages for future losses were awarded as a lump sum without explicit calculation.
Pahang Lin Siong Motor Co Ltd & Anor v Cheong Swee Khai & AnorUnknownYes[1962] MLJ 29MalaysiaCited as an early case where the conventional approach was explicitly applied.
Lai Chi Kay and others v Lee Kuo ShinUnknownYes[1981–1982] SLR(R) 71SingaporeCited as an example of confusion arising from using both present value tables and the conventional approach.
Loh Chia Mei v Koh Kok HanHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 181SingaporeCited as an example of fixing the multiplier by looking at multipliers used in comparable cases.
Chan Pui-ki v Leung OnHong Kong Court of AppealYes[1996] 2 HKLR 401Hong KongCited as an example of fixing the multiplier by looking at multipliers used in comparable cases.
Shaw Linda Gillian v Chai Kang Wei SamuelHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 187SingaporeCited as an example of applying a pure arithmetical discount and a further discount for the vicissitudes of life.
Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda GillianCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 587SingaporeCited as an example of applying a pure arithmetical discount and a further discount for the vicissitudes of life.
Ibrahim bin Ismail v Hasnah bte Puteh Imat (as beneficiary and legal mother of Bakri bin Yahya and substituting Yahaya bin Ibrahim)UnknownYes[2004] 1 MLJ 525MalaysiaCited as an example of applying a fixed formula.
Mallett v McMonagle, a minor by Hugh Joseph McMonagle, his father and guardian ad litem, and AnotherUnknownYes[1970] AC 166United KingdomCited for the reason for a cap of 16 on the multiplier.
Cookson (Widow and Administratrix of the estate of Frank Cookson, decd) v KnowlesUnknownYes[1979] AC 556United KingdomCited for the assumption that the lump sum award will earn interest at about 4 or 5 per cent.
Kartina Bte Mohd Nor v Pee Tian Leng (an infant)High CourtYes[1994] SGHC 291SingaporeCited for the assumption of a 4% interest rate.
Lim Fook Lau and another v Kepdrill International Inc SA and othersHigh CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 244SingaporeCited as an example of the courts taking into account the likely retirement age of the plaintiff.
Neo Kim Seng v Clough Petrosea Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 413SingaporeCited as an example of the courts taking into account the likely retirement age of the plaintiff.
Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee AhHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 361SingaporeCited as an example of the courts taking into account the likely retirement age of the plaintiff.
Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend Chua Wee Bee) v Koh Chai KwangHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 1037SingaporeCited as an example of the courts taking into account the likely retirement age of the plaintiff.
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)Court of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 610SingaporeCited as an example of the courts taking into account the likely retirement age of the plaintiff.
Wells v WellsUnknownYes[1999] 1 AC 345United KingdomCited for the remarks by Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
Chin Swey Min a patient suing by his wife and next friend Lim Siew Lee v Nor Nizar Bin MohamedHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 27SingaporeCited to argue that the multiplier for future medical expenses should be increased.
Tan Juay Mui (by his next friend Chew Chwee Kim) v Sher Kuan Hock and another (Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, co-defendant; Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd and another, third parties)High CourtYes[2012] 3 SLR 496SingaporeCited to argue that the multiplier for future medical expenses should be increased.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and another appealUnknownYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited as a case where the courts have been less generous in the multiplier for future medical expenses.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 65Singapore
Retirement and Re-Employment Act (Cap 274A, 2012 Rev Ed) s 4(1)Singapore
Retirement Age Act 1993 (Act 14 of 1993)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Damages Act 1996 (c 48) (UK) s 1United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Loss of Future Earnings
  • Future Medical Expenses
  • Multiplier
  • Multiplicand
  • Conventional Approach
  • Present Value Approach
  • Minimum Retirement Age
  • Real Interest Rates
  • Discount Rate
  • Accelerated Receipt
  • Vicissitudes of Life

15.2 Keywords

  • personal injury
  • damages
  • loss of earnings
  • medical expenses
  • negligence
  • multiplier
  • Singapore
  • court of appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Loss of future earnings95
Future Medical Expenses92
Measure of Damages90
Personal Injury85
Automobile Accidents70
Civil Procedure60

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Damages
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Litigation