Lua Bee Kiang v Yeo Chee Siong: Damages for Pain, Suffering, and Loss of Amenity in Personal Injury Case
In Lua Bee Kiang (administrator of the estate of Chew Kong Seng, deceased) v Yeo Chee Siong, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the High Court's assessment of damages for Mr. Yeo Chee Siong, who sustained serious injuries due to the negligence of Mr. Chew Kong Seng. Mr. Yeo sought damages from Mr. Chew’s estate for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, loss of earning capacity, loss of future earnings, and cost of future nursing care. The Court of Appeal reduced the award for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity from $326,000 to $200,000 and the award for cost of future nursing care from $76,800 to $46,080, resulting in a total award of $419,906.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning damages in a personal injury case. The court addressed the assessment of damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and future nursing care costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lua Bee Kiang | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Yeo Chee Siong | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent, award reduced | Partial | |
| Salpac (S) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Withdrawn | Withdrawn |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Yeo, a 64-year-old carpenter, was injured in a lorry accident caused by Mr. Chew's negligent driving.
- Mr. Chew died in the accident; Mr. Yeo suffered serious head and body injuries.
- Mr. Yeo now works as a cleaner due to permanent cognitive impairment and physical debilitation.
- The High Court awarded Mr. Yeo $576,626 in damages, including amounts for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, loss of earning capacity, loss of future earnings, and cost of future nursing care.
- Mr. Yeo sustained multiple facial fractures and injuries, including a 10cm forehead laceration, zygomatic arch fractures, sinus fractures, extensive hemosinus and complex facial fractures involving the anterior, lateral and posterior walls of both maxillary sinuses.
- Mr. Yeo also sustained blunt trauma injury to his right eye.
- Mr. Yeo's Glasgow Coma Score after the accident was 4.
- Mr. Yeo has no immediate family to care for him and lives alone in a rental flat.
5. Formal Citations
- Lua Bee Kiang(administrator of the estate of Chew Kong Seng, deceased)vYeo Chee Siong, Civil Appeal No 162 of 2017, [2018] SGCA 74
- Yeo Chee Siong v Salpac (S) Pte Ltd and another, , [2017] SGHC 304
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lorry accident occurred | |
| Suit filed | |
| Interlocutory judgment obtained against Mr Chew’s estate | |
| High Court awarded damages to Mr Yeo | |
| Civil Appeal filed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Measure of Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity
- Outcome: The court reduced the award for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity from $326,000 to $200,000.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of component method
- Overlapping injuries
- Consistency with precedents
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 3 SLR 1003
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 825
- [2010] 3 SLR 587
- (1880) 5 App Cas 25
- (1879) 5 QBD 78
- [1968] 2 QB 322
- [1983] 2 AC 773
- [1995] PIQR Q36
- [2011] EWCA Civ 1728
- [2008] SGHC 33
- [2012] 2 SLR 85
- [2012] 3 SLR 496
- Suit No 758 of 2002
- [2014] SGHCR 21
- [2016] 1 SLR 217
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 786
- [1993] 2 SLR(R) 290
- [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543
- [2001] QB 272
- Assessment of Damages for Future Loss (Cost of Nursing Care)
- Outcome: The court reduced the award for cost of future nursing care from $76,800 to $46,080, accounting for the chance that the claimant may not develop dementia.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Proof on a balance of probabilities
- Appreciable risk of future loss
- Discounting for remoteness of possibility
- Related Cases:
- [1970] AC 166
- [1974] AC 207
- (1990) ALR 545
- [2012] SGHC 33
- [2005] 2 AC 176
- [1987] AC 750
- Loss of Earning Capacity
- Outcome: The court upheld the award of $5,000 for loss of earning capacity.
- Category: Substantive
- Loss of Future Earnings
- Outcome: The court upheld the award of $72,000 for loss of future earnings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Multiplier
- Multiplicand
- Contingencies
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 229
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 209
- [2001] SGHC 303
- [2012] SGHC 33
- [2013] 2 HKLRD 1
- [2012] Med LR 394
- [1996] 2 SLR(R) 413
- [1979] AC 556
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the two methods traditionally employed by Singapore courts for determining the quantum of damages for personal injury. |
| 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 damages should be awarded for losses that may properly be regarded as distinct or discrete. |
| Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 587 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overall quantum of damages must be a reasonable sum that reflects the totality of the claimant’s injuries. |
| Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal Co | House of Lords | Yes | (1880) 5 App Cas 25 | United Kingdom | Cited for the basic principle for determining the quantum of damages for personal injury is to award the claimant “full compensation” for his loss. |
| Phillips v The London and South Western Railway Co | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1879) 5 QBD 78 | United Kingdom | Cited for the guiding principle of “fair compensation” in the context of non-pecuniary loss. |
| Fletcher v Autocar and Transporters Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1968] 2 QB 322 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that compensation ought to be reasonable and just, and need not be “absolute” or “perfect”. |
| Wright v British Railways Board | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] 2 AC 773 | United Kingdom | Cited for the aim that justice meted out to all litigants should be even-handed instead of depending on the idiosyncrasies of the assessor. |
| Brown v Woodall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] PIQR Q36 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the court must consider whether the aggregate figure is reasonable compensation for the totality of the injury to the claimant. |
| Sadler v Filipiak and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] EWCA Civ 1728 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that it is always necessary to stand back from the compilation of individual figures to consider whether the award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity should be greater or smaller than the sum of the parts. |
| Ramesh s/o Ayakanno (suing by the committee of the person and the estate, Ramiah Naragatha Vally) v Chua Gim Hock | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 33 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. |
| Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok Tong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 85 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. |
| Tan Juay Mui (by his [sic] 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 Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 496 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. |
| Yin Xiao Lian v Ang Hoo Kim | High Court | Yes | Suit No 758 of 2002 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. |
| AOD, a minor suing by the litigation representative v AOE | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHCR 21 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. |
| AOD (a minor suing by his litigation representative) v AOE | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 217 | Singapore | Cited as reference to the appeal of the AR's decision in AOD, a minor suing by the litigation representative v AOE [2014] SGHCR 21. |
| Tan Kok Lam (next friend to Teng Eng) v Hong Choon Peng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pain, suffering and loss of amenity are different concepts, and “neither one is subsumed under the other”. |
| Au Yeong Wing Loong v Chew Hai Ban and another | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 290 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where pain and suffering is concerned, the court is concerned with both physical and psychological pain. |
| TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is concerned with both pain the claimant has already endured and what he or she will have to endure in the future. |
| Heil v Rankin and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] QB 272 | United Kingdom | Cited for the need to pay attention to each of the distinct concepts of pain, suffering and loss of amenity in order to arrive at a fair award. |
| Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (by his litigation representative Pang Choy Chun) v Yeo Chye Huat and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 229 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a discount is applied to the multiplier to take into account the putative investment risk associated with the accelerated receipt of future income as a lump sum, as well as contingencies such as mortality and other considerations affecting life expectancy. |
| Goh Eng Hong v Management Corporation of Textile Centre and another | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a discount was applied to the multiplier due to a pre-existing eye condition. |
| Ong Tean Hoe v Hong Kong Industrial Company Private Limited | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 303 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the multiplier was reduced without explanation. |
| Toh Wai Sie v Ranjendran s/o G Selamuthu | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 33 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the approach being applied to determine whether cost of nursing care should be awarded. |
| Chan Pak Ting v Chan Chi Kuen (No 2) | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2013] 2 HKLRD 1 | Hong Kong | Cited for the tiered framework of discount rates that varied with the length of the expected period of future loss. |
| Simon v Helmot | Privy Council | Yes | [2012] Med LR 394 | Guernsey | Cited for the rates of inflation exceeding the rates of return on investments suitable for claimant-investors with short investment horizons. |
| Neo Kim Seng v Clough Petrosea Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 413 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the multiplier was discounted by virtue of the claimant’s occupation. |
| Mallett v McMonagle, a minor by Hugh Joseph McMonagle, his father and guardian ad litem, and Another | House of Lords | Yes | [1970] AC 166 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that in assessing damages which depend on what will happen in the future or what would have happened in the future but for the defendant’s negligence, “the court must make an estimate as to what are the chance that a particular thing will or would have happened and reflect those chances, whether they are more or less than even, in the amount of damages which it awards”. |
| Davies (AP) (suing as widow and administratrix of the estate of Kenneth Stanley Davies, decd) v Taylor | House of Lords | Yes | [1974] AC 207 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that all that the claimant had to show was that there was an appreciable chance of reconciliation, and if she could do that, she would recover for the loss of dependency, and damages would be set at the amount of the dependency multiplied by that chance expressed as a percentage. |
| Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1990) ALR 545 | Australia | Cited for the principle that in the case of an event which it is alleged would or would not have occurred, or might or might not yet occur, the approach of the court is different. |
| Cookson (Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Frank Cookson, decd) v Knowles | House of Lords | Yes | [1979] AC 556 | United Kingdom | Cited for the reasoning that it would be reasonable to think that a person like him would have worked X number of years, but that X should be reduced or increased on account of risks arising from the nature of his occupation or his personal characteristics. |
| Poh Fu Tek and others v Lee Shung Guan and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 425 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no provable truth with regard to the future. |
| Gregg v Scott | House of Lords | Yes | [2005] 2 AC 176 | United Kingdom | Cited as a case where the claim was denied because it was found that the claimant would not, on a balance of probabilities, have recovered from the injury even if the defendant had not been negligent, and because the loss of a chance of recovery was not considered actionable damage. |
| Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 750 | United Kingdom | Cited as a case where a similar claim failed because even without the negligent misdiagnosis, nothing could have been done to cure the injury. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Retirement and Re-employment Act (Cap 274A) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Pain
- Suffering
- Loss of Amenity
- Loss of Earning Capacity
- Loss of Future Earnings
- Cost of Future Nursing Care
- Component Method
- Global Method
- Multiplier
- Multiplicand
- Discount Rate
- Balance of Probabilities
- Appreciable Risk
- Dementia
15.2 Keywords
- personal injury
- damages
- negligence
- Singapore
- court of appeal
- pain and suffering
- loss of amenity
- future earnings
- nursing care
- cognitive impairment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Personal Injury | 95 |
| Measure of Damages | 90 |
| Damages Assessment | 90 |
| Negligence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Personal Injury
- Damages Assessment
- Negligence