Mykytowych v VIP Hotel: Damages Assessment for Slip and Fall Injury

Pamela Jane Mykytowych, the Appellant, appealed the High Court's assessment of damages against V I P Hotel, the Respondent, following a slip and fall accident at the hotel in 2011. The Appellant claimed damages for physical injuries, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), fibromyalgia, and related financial losses. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, adjusting the damages awarded for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages assessment after a hotel slip and fall. The court addressed claims of CRPS, fibromyalgia, and loss of earnings.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pamela Jane MykytowychAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
V I P HotelRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Salem bin Mohamed IbrahimSalem Ibrahim LLC
Ramesh AppooJust Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Appellant slipped on a puddle of water at Respondent's reception area.
  2. Appellant suffered a non-displaced fracture to her left kneecap and a strained ankle.
  3. Appellant claimed to have developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and fibromyalgia.
  4. Appellant claimed significant financial losses due to her inability to work.
  5. Appellant was an active participant in motorsports activities prior to the accident.
  6. Surveillance footage showed Appellant walking at Pasir Ris Park.
  7. Appellant taught courses at MDIS on a part-time basis in 2012 and 2013.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P Hotel, Civil Appeal No 125 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 44

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant slipped and fell at Respondent's hotel
Appellant diagnosed with non-displaced fracture of left patella
Appellant moved to apartment rented by Balanced Engineering
Appellant attended first physiotherapy session
Appellant commenced proceedings against Respondent
Appellant seen by Dr. Nicholas Chua, symptoms consistent with Type I CRPS
Appellant referred to Dr. Vincent Yeo for pain management
Appellant started seeing Ms. Su Yin Yang for anxiety and sleeping difficulties
Suit transferred to High Court
Appellant saw Dr. Bernard Lee, diagnosed with CRPS and fibromyalgia
Parties entered into interlocutory judgment by consent
Appellant saw Dr. Ganesan for final time before moving to Taiwan
Appellant left Singapore for Taiwan
Appellant returned to Singapore for medical examinations
Appellant and husband returned to the UK from Taiwan
Assessment of damages hearing before the Judge
Appellant filed present appeal
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal adjusted the damages awarded by the High Court, increasing the total amount payable to the Appellant.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal declined to admit further evidence sought to be adduced by the Appellant, including a medical report protected by litigation privilege.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Litigation Privilege
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that a medical report was protected by litigation privilege and declined to admit it as further evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Causation
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's decision to dismiss the Appellant's claim for pain and suffering for her back injury, finding that the Appellant had not sufficiently proved that her back injury was caused by the Accident.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal accepted that the Appellant suffered from CRPS but found that she had exaggerated the extent to which she was affected by the condition. The Court awarded damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities arising from CRPS.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Loss of Future Earning Capacity
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal awarded the Appellant a sum for loss of future earning capacity, finding that her CRPS had resulted in some permanent disabilities that would weaken her competitive position in the open employment market.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P HotelHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 113SingaporeThe judgment under appeal; the Court of Appeal reviewed the High Court's assessment of damages.
Ladd v MarshallNot AvailableYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the three-stage test for admitting further evidence at the appellate stage.
Worrall v ReichEnglish Court of AppealYes[1955] 2 WLR 338England and WalesCited for the principle that medical reports made on behalf of parties for the purpose of preparing their case for trial are protected by litigation privilege.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other appealsNot AvailableYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 367SingaporeCited for the principles of legal professional privilege, including litigation privilege and legal advice privilege.
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 6)Not AvailableYes[2005] 1 AC 610England and WalesCited for the requirement of a reasonable prospect of litigation for litigation privilege to apply.
Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd and General Contractors Importing and Services Enterprises v HarrisonNot AvailableYes[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 160BermudaCited for the requirement of a reasonable prospect of litigation for litigation privilege to apply.
Collins v London General Omnibus CompanyNot AvailableYes(1893) 68 LT 831England and WalesDisapproved regarding the chances of litigation needing to be higher than 50%.
Waugh v British Railways BoardNot AvailableYes[1980] AC 521England and WalesCited for the principle that the dominant purpose for seeking advice must be for litigation for litigation privilege to apply.
Causton v Mann Egerton (Johnsons) LtdNot AvailableYes[1974] 1 WLR 162England and WalesCited for the principle that medical reports are in no different category from other experts’ reports regarding litigation privilege.
Dr Pritam Singh v Yap Hong ChoonNot AvailableYes[2007] 1 MLJ 31MalaysiaCited for the principle that medical reports can be subject to litigation privilege.
BBN (her next friend B) v Low Eu Hong (trading as EH Low Baby N’ Child Clinic)Singapore High CourtYes[2012] SGHCR 7SingaporeCited for the principle that medical reports can be subject to litigation privilege.
Wentworth v J C Lloyd and othersHouse of LordsYes(1864) 10 HLC 589England and WalesCited for the principle that drawing an adverse inference from a refusal to disclose privileged documents would render litigation privilege otiose.
Michael Patrick Sayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm)Not AvailableYes[2002] EWCA Civ 910England and WalesCited for the principle that drawing an adverse inference from a refusal to disclose privileged documents would render litigation privilege otiose.
HT SRL v Wee Shuo WoonNot AvailableYes[2016] 2 SLR 442SingaporeCited for the principle that admissibility, privilege, and confidentiality are distinct concepts.
Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v The QueenNot AvailableYes[1955] 2 WLR 223England and WalesCited for the principle that admissibility is governed by whether evidence is relevant to the matters in issue.
Lord Ashburton v PapeNot AvailableYes[1913] 2 Ch 469England and WalesCited for the principle that equity may intervene to prevent the unauthorized use of information contained in privileged material.
Goddard v Nationwide Building SocietyNot AvailableYes[1986] 3 WLR 734England and WalesCited for the principle that equity may intervene to prevent the unauthorized use of information contained in privileged material.
Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Multiple Granite Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 42SingaporeCited for the principle that equity may intervene to prevent the unauthorized use of information contained in privileged material.
Calcraft v GuestNot AvailableYes[1898] 1 QB 759England and WalesDiscussed in relation to the admissibility of secondary evidence of privileged documents.
Webster v James Chapman & CoNot AvailableYes[1989] 3 All ER 939England and WalesSought to reconcile Calcraft and Lord Ashburton.
Gelatissimo Venture (S) Pte Ltd and others v Singapore Flyer Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 833SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the relationship between Calcraft and Lord Ashburton; the Court of Appeal disagreed with the observation that Tentat had rejected the principles stated in Calcraft.
ITC Film Distributors v Video Exchange Ltd and othersNot AvailableYes[1982] Ch 431England and WalesCited for the principle that equity will not permit parties to resort to trickery or deception to circumvent legal rules and safeguards.
Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 740SingaporeCited as a local precedent for awarding damages in respect of CRPS.
Khek Ching Ching v SBS Transit LtdDistrict CourtYes[2010] SGDC 220SingaporeCited as a local precedent for awarding damages in respect of CRPS.
Blight v WaginDistrict Court of Western AustraliaYesCiv 7714 of 1993AustraliaCited as a foreign case for awarding damages in respect of CRPS.
Alexander Stewart Darg v Commssioner for Police for the Metropolis and Venson Public Sector LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2009] EWHC 684England and WalesCited as a foreign case for awarding damages in respect of CRPS.
David Kerr v Stiell Facilities LtdScottish Court of SessionYes[2009] CSOH 67ScotlandCited as a foreign case for awarding damages in respect of CRPS.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and anotherNot AvailableYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422SingaporeCited for the importance of pleadings.
Teo Sing Keng v Sim Ban KiatNot AvailableYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 340SingaporeCited for the principle that awards for loss of future earnings and awards for loss of future earning capacity are distinct types of awards.
Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda GillianNot AvailableYes[2010] 3 SLR 587SingaporeCited for the principle that awards for loss of future earnings and awards for loss of future earning capacity are distinct types of awards.
Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok TongNot AvailableYes[2012] 2 SLR 85SingaporeCited for the principle that awards for loss of future earnings and awards for loss of future earning capacity are distinct types of awards.
A and others v The National Blood Authority and othersNot AvailableYes[2001] 3 All ER 289England and WalesCited for the test to be applied in determining whether to make any award for loss of future earning capacity where the plaintiff is unemployed at the time of the assessment of damages hearing.
Cook v Consolidated Fisheries LtdNot AvailableYes[1977] ICR 635England and WalesCited for the test to be applied in determining whether to make any award for loss of future earning capacity where the plaintiff is unemployed at the time of the assessment of damages hearing.
Smith v Manchester CorporationNot AvailableYes[1974] 17 KIR 1England and WalesCited for the principle that an award for loss of future earning capacity is given as part of general damages in order to compensate a plaintiff for the weakening of his competitive position in the open labour market.
Fairley v John Thompson (Design & Contracting Division) LtdNot AvailableYes[1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40England and WalesCited for the principle that an award for loss of future earnings is a form of special damages awarded for real assessable loss proved by evidence.
Moeliker v A Reyrolle and Co LtdNot AvailableYes[1977] 1 All ER 9England and WalesCited for the principle that it is not appropriate to use any of the formulas commonly employed to calculate awards for loss of future earnings, such as the multiplicand and multiplier method, in making awards for loss of future earning capacity.
Clark Jonathan Michael v Lee Khee ChungHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 209SingaporeCited for the principle that an assessment of damages for loss of future earning capacity can be an exercise in speculation and that the court must take a “rough and ready” approach.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
  • CRPS
  • Fibromyalgia
  • Damages Assessment
  • Loss of Earnings
  • Loss of Earning Capacity
  • Interlocutory Judgment
  • Litigation Privilege
  • Surveillance Footage
  • Medical Report

15.2 Keywords

  • slip and fall
  • hotel
  • damages
  • CRPS
  • fibromyalgia
  • assessment
  • Singapore
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Measure of Damages75
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome65
Evidence Law60
Evidence60
Personal Injury50
Medical Negligence30
Medical Malpractice30
Fibromyalgia25
Civil Procedure25

16. Subjects

  • Personal Injury
  • Damages
  • Civil Litigation
  • Medical Evidence