Eng Beng v Lo Kok Jong: Recovery of Medical Expenses with Government Subsidies
In Eng Beng v Lo Kok Jong, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding whether Eng Beng, the appellant, could claim her full medical expenses, including government subsidies and grants, from Lo Kok Jong, the respondent, after Lo Kok Jong's car collided with her, causing serious injuries. The Deputy Registrar and District Judge both denied Eng Beng's claim, citing double recovery. Tan Siong Thye J allowed the appeal, finding that the subsidies were akin to collateral benefits under the Benevolence Exception and should not relieve the respondent of his liability.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding whether an injured plaintiff can claim full medical expenses, including government subsidies, from a negligent defendant. Appeal allowed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lo Kok Jong | Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Eng Beng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in full | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Appellant, an 84-year-old woman, was hit by a car driven by the Respondent while crossing the road.
- The Appellant sustained serious injuries, including a closed trimalleolar fracture of her right ankle.
- The Appellant filed a negligence suit against the Respondent, seeking general and special damages.
- Interlocutory judgment was entered against the Respondent for 85% of the damages to be assessed.
- The Deputy Registrar refused to award the Appellant an additional sum of $39,515.08 claimed as special damages for medical expenses due to government subsidies and grants.
- The subsidies and grants were deducted from the Appellant’s medical bills, reducing her out-of-pocket expenses.
- The Appellant was a member of the Pioneer Generation, entitling her to additional subsidies.
5. Formal Citations
- Eng Beng v Lo Kok Jong, Registrar’s Appeal from the State Courts No 30 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 63
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Road traffic accident occurred | |
| Appellant filed a negligence suit against the Respondent | |
| Interlocutory judgment was entered against the Respondent by consent | |
| The Deputy Registrar awarded damages | |
| The District Judge dismissed the appeal | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Double Recovery
- Outcome: The court held that the government subsidies were akin to collateral benefits under the Benevolence Exception and should not be deducted from the damages payable by the tortfeasor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of the Benevolence Exception
- Deductibility of government subsidies from damages
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the respondent negligent, leading to the appellant's injuries.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- General Damages
- Special Damages
- Medical Expenses
- Transport Expenses
- Medical Apparatus
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1317 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damages seek to put the injured plaintiff in the same position as if the tort had not been committed. |
| Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal Company | House of Lords | Yes | (1880) 5 App Cas 25 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that damages should put the injured party in the same position as if they had not sustained the wrong. |
| The “MARA” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 31 | Singapore | Cited for the basic rule that damages in negligence are purely compensatory and any gain received by the injured plaintiff will be taken into account. |
| Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1988] AC 514 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the only recoverable loss is the net loss, and financial gains accruing to the plaintiff are to be taken into account. |
| Lo Lee Len v Grand Interior Renovation Works Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the object of an award of damages is to place the injured party in the same financial position as if the accident had not occurred. |
| Minichit Bunhom v Jazali bin Kastari and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1037 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the determination of what is deductible in the assessment of recoverable loss depends on justice, reasonableness, and public policy. |
| National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1961) 105 CLR 569 | Australia | Cited for the principle that collateral benefits received as a result of benevolence are intended for the injured plaintiff's enjoyment and not to relieve the tortfeasor's liability. |
| Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 10 | Singapore | Cited to support the position that the claim of subsidies and grants should be an exception to the rule against double recovery. |
| Sun Delong v Teo Poh Soon and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 129 | Singapore | Cited as an example where court orders have been made previously for injured plaintiffs to make the necessary repayments. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation Funds Act 2014 | Singapore |
| Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Government Subsidies
- Pioneer Generation
- Double Recovery
- Benevolence Exception
- Collateral Benefits
- Medical Expenses
- Negligence
- Damages
- Means Test
- Public Healthcare System
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- damages
- government subsidies
- pioneer generation
- double recovery
- medical expenses
- singapore
- personal injury
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Negligence | 90 |
| Measure of Damages | 85 |
| Automobile Accidents | 80 |
| Personal Injury | 75 |
| Double Recovery | 70 |
| Government Subsidies | 65 |
| Civil Litigation | 60 |
| Pioneer Generation Package | 55 |
| Causation | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Estoppel | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Tort
- Damages
- Healthcare Law
- Civil Litigation