Leow Peng Yam v. Aryall Kang Jia Dian: Negligence Claim & Limitation Act Dispute

In Leow Peng Yam v. Aryall Kang Jia Dian, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding a negligence claim. Aryall Kang Jia Dian sustained injuries after being hit by a bus driven by Leow Peng Yam. Leow Peng Yam conceded negligence, but argued the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that Aryall Kang Jia Dian's cognitive impairment warranted an extension of the limitation period.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

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 concerning a negligence claim where Aryall Kang Jia Dian was injured by Leow Peng Yam's bus. The key issue was whether the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Leow Peng YamAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Aryall Kang Jia DianRespondentIndividualAppeal UpheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Kannan RameshJudge of the High CourtNo
Hoo Sheau PengJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gregory VijayendranRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tomoyuki Lewis BanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Evelyn Chua Zhi HueiRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ganesh S RamanathanKaruppan Chettiar & Partners
Renuka d/o Karuppan ChettiarKaruppan Chettiar & Partners
Raj Singh ShergillLee Shergill LLC
Koh Jia Min DesireeLee Shergill LLC

4. Facts

  1. On 14 May 2016, Aryall Kang Jia Dian was injured by a bus driven by Leow Peng Yam.
  2. Leow Peng Yam accepted that Aryall Kang Jia Dian's injury was caused by his negligence.
  3. Aryall Kang Jia Dian suffered severe head and brain injuries, as well as psychological conditions.
  4. Aryall Kang Jia Dian was in a state of amnesia after the accident.
  5. Aryall Kang Jia Dian filed a police report on 23 May 2016.
  6. Aryall Kang Jia Dian met with lawyers on 11 October 2016.
  7. The writ of summons was filed on 18 June 2019, more than three years after the accident.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Leow Peng Yam v Kang Jia Dian Aryall, Civil Appeal No 111 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 25
  2. Aryall Kang Jia Dian v Leow Peng Yam, District Court Appeal No 15 of 2021, [2021] SGDC 91

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Collision between Aryall Kang Jia Dian and bus driven by Leow Peng Yam
Aryall Kang Jia Dian discharged from Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and filed a police report
Aryall Kang Jia Dian met with lawyers
Writ of summons filed against Leow Peng Yam
District Judge decided in favor of Aryall Kang Jia Dian
Appellant's appeal dismissed by the Judge
Appellant filed an appeal to the Appellate Division
Appeal hearing by the Appellate Division
Grounds of decision delivered by the court

7. Legal Issues

  1. Limitation of Actions
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondent's cognitive impairment warranted an extension of the limitation period.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • When time begins to run
      • Constructive knowledge
      • Cognitive impairment
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 1 AC 76
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The appellant conceded negligence.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Aryall Kang Jia Dian v Leow Peng YamDistrict CourtYes[2021] SGDC 91SingaporeAffirmed at first instance in favor of the respondent.
Leow Peng Yam v Aryall Kang Jia DianHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 275SingaporeAffirmed on appeal to the High Court, addressing the limitation issue.
Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough CouncilHouse of LordsYes[2005] 1 AC 76United KingdomCited for the objective test in determining requisite knowledge under limitation statutes, but the court found that the Judge had applied the objective approach in Adams.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862SingaporeCited for the grounds for leave to appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Limitation Act
  • Negligence
  • Cognitive Impairment
  • Constructive Knowledge
  • Time-Barred
  • Personal Injury
  • Objective Test
  • Fact-Specific Approach

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • limitation act
  • personal injury
  • cognitive impairment
  • singapore
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Limitation95
Negligence90
Automobile Accidents85
Personal Injury80
Civil Practice75
Evidence Law60

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Limitation of Actions
  • Civil Procedure