Muhammad Adam Lee v Tay Jia Rong Sean: Damages for Personal Injuries

In Suit No 253 of 2018, Muhammad Adam Lee, represented by his litigation representatives Noraini binte Tabiin and Nurul Ashikin binte Muhammad Lee, sued Tay Jia Rong Sean in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore for damages resulting from a car accident on 3 April 2015. The defendant conceded 100% liability, and the court, presided over by S Mohan J, assessed damages, awarding the plaintiff $2,186,182.40. The judgment addresses various heads of claim, including pain and suffering, loss of future income, and medical expenses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $2,186,182.40.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judgment assessing damages for Muhammad Adam Lee, who suffered severe injuries in a car accident, including TBI and fractures, resulting in permanent incapacity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Muhammad Adam Lee bin Muhammad LeePlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Tay Jia Rong SeanDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
S MohanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Michelle KaurClifford Law LLP
Viviene Kaur SandhuClifford Law LLP
Anthony WeeTitanium Law Chambers LLC
Pang Weng FongTitanium Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. On 3 April 2015, the plaintiff was struck by a car driven by the defendant while walking on a footpath.
  2. The defendant conceded 100% liability for the accident.
  3. The plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries, including traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures.
  4. The plaintiff is now mentally incapacitated and requires ongoing care.
  5. The plaintiff was enrolled in Singapore Polytechnic's Computer Engineering course at the time of the accident.
  6. The plaintiff attempted to resume his studies but was unable to cope with the coursework.
  7. The plaintiff is currently unemployed and unlikely to obtain future employment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Muhammad Adam bin Muhammad Lee (suing by his litigation representatives Noraini binte Tabiin and Nurul Ashikin binte Muhammad Lee)vTay Jia Rong Sean, Suit No 253 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 264

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Car accident occurred
Plaintiff hospitalised at Tan Tock Seng Hospital
Plaintiff discharged from Tan Tock Seng Hospital
Defendant conceded 100% liability
Interlocutory judgment entered by consent
Assessment of damages hearing commenced
Assessment of damages hearing concluded
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Measure of Damages for Personal Injuries
    • Outcome: The court determined the appropriate amounts for various heads of damages, including pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and medical expenses.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Pain and Suffering
      • Loss of Amenity
      • Loss of Future Earnings
      • Medical Expenses
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 1 SLR 145
  2. Applicability of Actuarial Tables for Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court held that the Actuarial Tables with Explanatory Notes for use in Personal Injury and Death Claims were not applicable in this case due to the timing of the hearing.
    • 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
Lua Bee Kiang (administrator of the estate of Chew Kong Seng, deceased) v Yeo Chee SiongCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 145SingaporeCited for the principle of restoring a plaintiff to the position as if the tortious wrong had not been committed.
Au Yeong Wing Loong v Chew Hai Ban and anotherN/AYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 290SingaporeCited to define pain and suffering as physical, emotional, and intellectual suffering arising from injury.
Tan Kok Lam (next friend to Teng Eng) v Hong Choon PengN/AYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 786SingaporeCited to define loss of amenity as an objective fact not dependent on the victim's appreciation of the loss.
Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda GillianCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 587SingaporeCited for guidance on analyzing claims for traumatic brain injury with reference to structural, psychological, and cognitive domains.
Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok TongN/AYes[2012] 2 SLR 85SingaporeCited as a precedent for assessing damages for traumatic brain injury.
Tan Woo Thian v PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1166SingaporeCited for the principle that causation is a matter going towards liability and not quantum.
Ang Siam Hua v Teo Cheng HoeHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 147SingaporeCited as authority for awards for pneumonia and tracheotomy scars.
Sun Delong v Teo Poh Soon and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 129SingaporeCited as authority for awards for lung contusions and pneumomediastinum.
Ramesh s/o Ayakanno (suing by the committee of the person and the estate, Ramiah Naragatha Vally) v Chua Gim HockHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 33SingaporeCited as a precedent for assessing damages for head and bodily injuries resulting in mental disability.
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)N/AYes[2012] 3 SLR 496SingaporeCited as a precedent for assessing damages for head injuries, personality changes, and physical disabilities.
AOD, a minor suing by the litigation representative v AOEHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHCR 21SingaporeCited as a precedent for assessing damages for pain and suffering in cases of severe disability.
Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 197SingaporeCited regarding the question of whether aggravated damages are recoverable in cases of negligence.
AYW v AYXN/AYes[2016] 1 SLR 1183SingaporeCited regarding the question of whether aggravated damages are recoverable in cases of negligence.
Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 10SingaporeCited regarding the question of whether aggravated damages are recoverable in cases of negligence.
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and othersN/AYes[2017] 1 SLR 918SingaporeCited to define aggravated damages as augmenting a sum awarded in general damages.
Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appealN/AYes[2013] 4 SLR 629SingaporeCited to define aggravated damages as augmenting a sum awarded in general damages.
Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh and anotherN/AYes[2015] 4 SLR 667SingaporeCited regarding the requirements for claiming aggravated damages.
Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (by his litigation representative Pang Choy Chun) v Yeo Chye Huat and another appealN/AYes[2017] 2 SLR 229SingaporeCited for the method of calculating damages for future losses arising from non-fatal personal injuries.
Christian Pollmann v Ye Xian RongHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 77SingaporeCited for the method of calculating damages for future losses arising from non-fatal personal injuries.
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd v Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinN/AYes[2012] 3 SLR 1003SingaporeCited for the methods for determining the multiplier in assessing future losses.
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei YenN/AYes[2014] 3 SLR 702SingaporeCited regarding the multipliers awarded in Singapore and the assumption that the lump-sum award could be invested to achieve real rates of return.
Teo Sing Keng and another v Sim Ban KiatN/AYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 340SingaporeCited for the principle that income tax is ordinarily deducted from the multiplicand.
Foo Chee Boon Edward v Seto Wei MengCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 92SingaporeCited for the principle that income tax is ordinarily deducted from the multiplicand.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea HeidiN/AYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited as a precedent for determining the multiplier for future losses.
Thomson Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation)N/AYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 246SingaporeCited for the court's inherent power to recall its judgment before it has been perfected.
Tan Chin Hoon and others v Tan Choo Suan (in her personal capacity and as executrix of the estate of Tan Kiam Toen, deceased) and others and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 306SingaporeCited for the court's inherent power to recall its judgment before it has been perfected.
Cookson (widow and administratrix of the estate of Frank Cookson, decd.) v KnowlesN/AYes[1979] 1 AC 556N/ACited regarding pre-judgment interest on future losses.
Hitachi Zosen Robin Dockyard (Pte) Ltd v Lee Pui KengCourt of AppealYes[1988] 1 SLR(R) 524SingaporeCited regarding pre-judgment interest on future losses.
Jefford and another v GeeN/AYes[1970] 2 QB 130N/ACited regarding pre-judgment interest on special damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Retirement and Re-employment Act (Cap 274A, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Loss of Future Earnings
  • Pain and Suffering
  • Medical Expenses
  • Actuarial Tables
  • Multiplier
  • Multiplicand
  • Loss of Amenity

15.2 Keywords

  • personal injury
  • damages
  • traumatic brain injury
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • negligence
  • assessment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Measure of Damages90
Damages Assessment90
Personal Injury90
Actuarial Tables60
Civil Procedure50
Evidence50
Mental Capacity30

16. Subjects

  • Personal Injury
  • Damages Assessment
  • Civil Litigation