Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye Huat: Damages for Personal Injuries Following Motor Accident

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal (CA 45) and cross-appeal (CA 52) regarding the High Court's decision in Suit No 695 of 2012, Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye Huat, concerning damages awarded to Quek Yen Fei Kenneth, who was suing by litigation representative Pang Choy Chun, for injuries sustained in a motor accident caused by Yeo Chye Huat. The High Court had awarded Quek $452,509.41. The Court of Appeal adjusted the damages for future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity, increasing the total award to $471,823.94. The appeal was allowed in part, and the cross-appeal was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal and cross-appeal concerning damages awarded to Quek Yen Fei Kenneth for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The court adjusted the damages for future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Quek Yen Fei KennethAppellant, Respondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartialP Padman, Hue Jia Pei
Yeo Chye HuatRespondent, Appellant, DefendantIndividualCross-appeal dismissedLostRenuka d/o Karuppan Chettiar

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
P PadmanKSCGP Juris LLP
Hue Jia PeiKSCGP Juris LLP
Renuka d/o Karuppan ChettiarKaruppan Chettiar & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Quek, born in 1991, sustained severe injuries in a 2011 motor accident when a taxi driven by Yeo collided with his motorcycle.
  2. Quek's right leg was amputated below the knee, and he suffered a fractured right collarbone.
  3. The High Court found Yeo 100% liable for the accident and ordered damages to be assessed.
  4. The Judge awarded Quek $452,509.41 in damages, including general damages, special damages, and interest.
  5. Yeo made two offers to settle before the assessment of damages hearing, neither of which was accepted by Quek.
  6. Quek had a sketchy employment history, dropping out of school in Secondary Three and holding various part-time jobs.
  7. The Judge awarded Quek $162,000.00 for loss of earning capacity, based on a multiplicand of $750.00 per month over an 18-year multiplier.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Quek Yen Fei Kenneth(by his litigation representative Pang Choy Chun)vYeo Chye Huat and another appeal, , [201] SGCA 29
  2. QUEK YEN FEI KENNETH SUING BY LITIGATION REPRESENTIVE PANG CHOY CHUN v YEO CHYE HUAT, 45 of 2016, Civil Appeal No 45 of 2016
  3. YEO CHYE HUAT v QUEK YEN FEI KENNETH SUING BY LITIGATION REPRESENTIVE PANG CHOY CHUN, 52 of 2016, Civil Appeal No 52 of 2016
  4. QUEK YEN FEI KENNETH SUING BY LITIGATION REPRESENTIVE PANG CHOY CHUN v YEO CHYE HUAT, 695 of 201, Suit No 695 of 201

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Quek stopped his studies.
Quek enlisted for National Service.
Quek was involved in a motor accident.
Judge gave his decision on the assessment of damages.
Yeo made first offer to settle for $480,000.00.
Yeo made second offer to settle for $550,000.00.
Assessment of damages hearing.
Decision was revised at a hearing in chambers.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the multiplier for future medical expenses and affirmed the multiplicand for loss of earning capacity.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Multiplier for Future Medical Expenses
      • Multiplier for Loss of Future Earnings
      • Multiplicand for Loss of Earning Capacity
      • Discount Rate for Accelerated Receipt
  2. Costs
    • Outcome: The court did not vary the Judge’s order on costs for Yeo to pay Quek’s costs on a standard basis only up to the date of Yeo’s second OTS on 15 February 2016.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye HuatHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1106SingaporeThe judgment under appeal; sets out the High Court's decision on damages.
Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye HuatHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 132SingaporeCited for the Judge’s decision on liability, where judgment was given in Quek’s favour with damages to be assessed on the basis of 100% liability on the part of Yeo.
Teo Seng Kiat v Goh Hwa TeckHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 333SingaporeCited for the application of an 18-year multiplier to a 28-year-old male claimant, but distinguished due to the claimant's age and circumstances.
Pang Teck Kong v Chew Eng HwaHigh CourtYes[1992] SGHC 31SingaporeCited as a comparison for the award of damages for pain and suffering from a below-knee amputation, but distinguished due to changes in purchasing power since then.
Mallett v McMonagle, a minor by Hugh Joseph McMonagle, his father and guardian ad litem, and anotherHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 166United KingdomCited for the multiplier-multiplicand approach that forms the basis of the assessments of damages for FME and LFE/LEC for non-fatal personal injuries.
Paul and another v RendellPrivy CouncilYes(1981) 34 ALR 569South AustraliaCited for the difficulty in assessing the expected period of future loss in order to determine a multiplier.
Attorney-General v Rada BaskaranCourt of AppealYes[1971–1973] SLR(R) 376SingaporeCited as the first reported case in Singapore that applied the multiplier-multiplicand approach.
Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1983–1984] SLR(R) 388SingaporeCited for the observation that the starting point for calculating multiplier was the period of time in the future that the claimant can be expected to live but, in consequence of the accident not to earn.
Toon Chee Meng Eddie v Yeap Chin HonHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 407SingaporeCited for the comment that there was no reason why a set of actuarial tables adduced by a party in the English Court of Appeal decision of Croke and another v Wiseman and another [1982] 1 WLR 71 had no application in Singapore
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 1003SingaporeCited for noting that there are at least four different ways of calculating a multiplier.
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei YenCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 702SingaporeCited for rejecting a submission that Hafizul essentially endorsed dispensing with the Precedent Approach in favour of the Arithmetic Approach.
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)Court of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 610SingaporeCited for the option for a court to order provisional damages in lieu of an award of general damages pursuant to paragraph 16 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed).
Zhu Xiu Chun (alias Myint Myint Kyi) v Rockwills Trustee Ltd (administrators of the estate of and on behalf of the dependants of Heng Ang Tee Franklin, deceased) and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 412SingaporeCited for the observations that it would be helpful for parties, in addition to canvassing the multipliers set out in the precedents, to assist the court further by providing relevant financial or actuarial data to justify the discounts which they seek.
AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOEHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 217SingaporeCited for the observation that approximately halving the expected period of future loss.
Ho Yiu v Lim Peng SengHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 675SingaporeCited for the principle that the multiplier for future medical treatment was usually two years longer than the multiplier for loss of future earnings [or LEC].
Toh Wai Sie and another v Ranjendran s/o G SelamuthuHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 33SingaporeCited for the approach adopted in Toh Wai Sie at [37], and more clearly by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance in Chan Pak Ting v Chan Chi Kuen (No 2) [2013] 2 HKLRD 1 (“Chan Pak Ting”), where Bharwaney J formulated a tiered framework of discount rates that varied with the length of the expected period of future loss.
Chan Pak Ting v Chan Chi Kuen (No 2)Court of First InstanceYes[2013] 2 HKLRD 1Hong KongCited for the tiered framework of discount rates that varied with the length of the expected period of future loss.
Simon v HelmotPrivy CouncilYes[2012] Med LR 394GuernseyCited for the authority of the decision of the Privy Council in Simon v Helmot [2012] Med LR 394 (in an appeal from Guernsey) because the rates of inflation exceeded the rates of return on investments suitable for claimant-investors with such short investment horizons.
Cookson (Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Frank Cookson, decd) v KnowlesHouse of LordsYes[1979] 1 AC 556United KingdomCited for the assumed rate of return set out by the House of Lords in Cookson (Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Frank Cookson, decd) v Knowles [1979] 1 AC 556 (“Cookson v Knowles”).
Knauer v Ministry of JusticeUK Supreme CourtYes[2016] 2 WLR 672United KingdomMentioned as departing from Cookson v Knowles, but not on the point for which Cookson v Knowles was cited.
Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok TongCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 85SingaporeCited for the calculation of remaining life expectancy and as a precedent for FME multipliers.
Ng Song Leng v Soh Kim Seng Engineering Trading Pte Ltd and AnotherHigh CourtYes[1997] SGHC 289SingaporeCited as a precedent for FME multipliers.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea HeidiCourt of AppealYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited as a precedent for FME multipliers.
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 as a precedent for FME multipliers.
Lee Mui Yeng v Ng Tong YooHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 46SingaporeCited as a precedent for FME multipliers.
Neo Kim Seng v Clough Petrosea Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 413SingaporeCited for the observation that a manual worker would typically enjoy a shorter working life compared to a white collar worker.
Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend Chua Wee Bee) v Koh Chai KwangHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 1037SingaporeCited for the multiplier awarded by the High Court, which was not disapproved on appeal.
Peh Diana and another v Tan Miang LeeHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 22SingaporeCited in support of Quek's claim for LFE.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Retirement and Re-employment Act (Cap 274A, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Damages Act 1996 (c 48) (UK)United Kingdom
Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67) (Malaysia)Malaysia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Below-knee amputation
  • Future medical expenses
  • Loss of future earnings
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Multiplier
  • Multiplicand
  • Discount rate
  • Prosthesis
  • Provisional damages
  • Accelerated receipt

15.2 Keywords

  • motor accident
  • personal injury
  • damages
  • amputation
  • loss of earnings
  • medical expenses

16. Subjects

  • Personal Injury
  • Damages
  • Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

  • Personal Injury Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Damages Assessment