Salmizan Bin Abdullah v Crapper Ian Anthony: Negligence, Causation & Damages in Motor Vehicle Accidents

In Salmizan Bin Abdullah v Crapper Ian Anthony, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of causation in negligence claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. The plaintiff, Salmizan Bin Abdullah, sued the defendant, Crapper Ian Anthony, for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The court considered whether causation could be reserved for the assessment of damages stage, especially when parties agree that the claimant suffered some damages causally connected to the defendant's breach of duty. The court held that causation cannot be reserved in toto to the assessment of damages stage and cannot be challenged to any extent at the assessment of damages stage.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Question 1 answered in the negative; causation cannot be reserved in toto to the assessment of damages stage. Questions 2 and 3 reframed and answered; causation cannot be challenged to any extent at the assessment of damages stage.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses causation in negligence claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, clarifying the extent to which causation can be disputed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Crapper Ian AnthonyDefendantIndividualInterlocutory Judgment Against DefendantLost
Salmizan bin AbdullahPlaintiffIndividualInterlocutory Judgment for PlaintiffPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Seng Chew RichardTan Chin Hoe & Co
Siew Jey RenTan Chin Hoe & Co
Ling Leong HuiTommy Choo, Mark Go LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for personal injury, loss, and expenses arising from a motor vehicle accident.
  2. Defendant's motorcycle collided with Plaintiff's car.
  3. Plaintiff allegedly suffered neck pain and back pain as a result of the accident.
  4. Consent interlocutory judgment was entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for 90% of damages to be assessed.
  5. Defendant challenged the causation of the Plaintiff’s injuries based on Single Joint Experts' reports.
  6. Defendant disputed the causal connection between the accident and the Plaintiff’s injuries.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper, Ian Anthony, Suit No 377 of 2022 (Summons No 3827 of 2022), [2023] SGHC 75

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accident occurred
Statement of Claim filed
Defence filed
Consent interlocutory judgment entered
Order of court for appointment of Single Joint Experts
Joint Opening Statement filed for the Assessment of Damages hearing
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Causation in Negligence
    • Outcome: The court held that causation cannot be reserved in toto to the assessment of damages stage and cannot be challenged to any extent at the assessment of damages stage.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Causal connection between breach of duty and damage
      • Extent to which causation can be disputed at the assessment of damages stage
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 1166
  2. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court clarified what can be challenged at the assessment of damages stage following an interlocutory judgment on liability.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Extent of loss suffered by the claimant
      • Quantification of damages

8. Remedies Sought

  1. General damages
  2. Special damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Assessment of Damages

11. Industries

  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Woo Thian v PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1166SingaporeCited as a key authority on the requirement of establishing causation as an element of liability in negligence, impacting the extent to which causation can be challenged at the assessment of damages stage.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the four elements required to establish a cause of action in the tort of negligence.
CXN (a minor suing by her father and litigation representative) v CXO and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 311SingaporeCited to confirm that the elements of negligence are the same in personal injury motor accident cases.
Ngiam Kong Seng and another v Lim Chiew HockCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 674SingaporeDiscussed in relation to whether damage, causation, and remoteness go towards the assessment of damages or liability. The court clarifies that Tan Woo Thian resolves any uncertainty in Ngiam Kong Seng.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon MoundN/AYes[1961] 2 WLR 126United KingdomCited for the principle that tortious liability is founded on the consequences of the negligent act, not the act itself.
Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 353SingaporeCited for the principle that causation must be established before the question of quantification of damages arises.
Performance Cars v AbrahamEnglish Court of AppealYes[1962] 1 QB 33United KingdomCited to illustrate that if the defendant's negligence caused damage but did not result in any loss compared to the claimant's pre-tort position, then there is usually no recovery in terms of damages.
Bourhill v YoungHouse of LordsYes[1943] AC 92United KingdomCited for the principle that no damages can be awarded in the absence of a wrong.
Minichit Bunhom v Jazali bin Kastari and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 1037SingaporeCited for the principle that the court would usually award that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered loss, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.
Kek Lai Quan (Guo Laiquan) v Lim JunyouMagistrate’s CourtYes[2022] SGMC 7SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the common practice before Tan Woo Thian of reserving causation of injuries in toto at the assessment of damages.
Eliora Yow (an infant suing by her father and litigation representative, Yow Tuck Meng Jerry) v Kwa Kian PengMagistrate’s CourtYes[2020] SGMC 44SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the defendant's submission that the causation of the claimant's injuries remained a live issue at the assessment of damages stage.
Muhammad Shaun Eric bin Abdullah alias De Silva Shaun Eric v Ng Ah Tee (Chua Seng Thye, Third Party)High CourtYes[2004] SGHC 268SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the High Court regarding causation as a live issue at the assessment of damages stage.
Muhammad Shaun Eric bin Abdullah alias De Silva Shaun Eric v Ng Ah Tee (Chua Seng Thye, Third Party)High CourtYes[2005] SGHC 180SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the High Court regarding causation as a live issue at the assessment of damages stage.
U Myo Nyunt (alias Michael Nyunt) v First Property Holdings Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 816SingaporeCited for the principle that after a judgment in default is entered with damages to be assessed, the defendant is not entitled to dispute liability at the assessment of damages hearing.
Strachan v The Gleaner Co Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2005] 1 WLR 3204N/ACited for the principle that once judgment has been given for damages to be assessed, the defendant cannot dispute liability at the assessment hearing.
Lim Mei Choo (Lin Meizhu) v Muhammad Azham bin Razak (Direct Asia Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, intervener)Magistrate’s CourtYes[2021] SGMC 74SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the approach that a defendant may continue to dispute causation as to certain (but not all) heads of claims at the assessment stage.
Krishnamoorthy s/o Chellappan v Ramasamy ArivazhaganDistrict CourtYes[2021] SGDC 283SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the approach that a defendant may continue to dispute causation as to certain (but not all) heads of claims at the assessment stage.
Lim Ai Bee v Da-Cin Construction Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) and anotherDistrict CourtYes[2021] SGDC 227SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the approach that a defendant may continue to dispute causation as to certain (but not all) heads of claims at the assessment stage.
Fobrogo Loreen Vera Mrs Sandosham Fobrogo Loreen Vera v MCST Plan No 1614Magistrate’s CourtYes[2021] SGMC 75SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the approach that a defendant may continue to dispute causation as to certain (but not all) heads of claims at the assessment stage.
Justyna Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS TrustEnglish High CourtYes[2019] EWHC 630 (QB)United KingdomCited for the principle that with any admission of damage, the tort of negligence is complete, and it is well-established that a defendant can submit to judgment which reflects some damage and be permitted to argue causation issues upon the quantification.
Lee Mui Yeng v Ng Tong YooHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 46SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the High Court seemingly allowing causation to be challenged in toto at the assessment of damages stage.
Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 10SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the High Court seemingly allowing causation to be challenged in toto at the assessment of damages stage.
Symes v St George’s Healthcare NHS TrustEnglish High CourtYes(2014) 140 BMLR 171United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
Lunnun v SinghEnglish Court of AppealYes[1999] CPLR 587United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
Turner v TolemanEnglish Court of AppealYes(Unreported, 15 January 1999)United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
Carbopego-Abastecimento de Combustiveis SA v Amci Export CorporationEnglish High CourtYes[2006] EWHC 72 (Comm)United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
New Century Media Ltd v MakhlayEnglish High CourtYes[2013] EWHC 3556 (QB)United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
Seabrook v AdamEnglish Court of AppealYes[2021] 4 WLR 54United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines LtdN/AYes[1964] 2 WLR 150N/ADiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
New Brunswick Railway Co v British & French Trust CorporationHouse of LordsYes[1939] AC 1United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the development of the relevant English law.
Cheng William v Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 201SingaporeCited for the principle that the apportionment exercise involved the comparison of the relative significance of the acts or omissions of the parties in causing the claimant’s injuries, and of the relative culpability of the parties.
Ng Li Ning v Ting Jun Heng and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1267SingaporeCited for the principle that the guidelines in the Motor Accident Guide and the Motor Accident Claims Online are meant only as estimates and should not override the otherwise highly fact-sensitive apportionment exercise.
Sowerby v CharltonEnglish Court of AppealYes[2006] 1 WLR 568United KingdomCited for the principle that defendants and their insurers should not be allowed to withdraw their admissions of liability in so-called multi-track cases.
Brunsden v HumphreyEnglish Court of AppealYes(1884) 14 QBD 141United KingdomCited for the principle that multiple causes of action in the tort of negligence do not arise solely because different types of rights have been interfered with.
Ng Kong Choon v Tang Wee GohHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 935SingaporeCited for the principle that multiple causes of action in the tort of negligence do not arise solely because different types of rights have been interfered with.
Smithurst v Sealant Construction Services LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[2011] EWCA Civ 1277United KingdomCited for the principle that the consideration of other possible subsequent events is also permissible at the assessment of damages stage.
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[1962] 2 WLR 148United KingdomCited for the principle that any further actionable damage that flows from the defendant’s breach of duty must be proved at the liability stage.
Nedjla Surer v Stuart DriverEnglish High CourtYes[2021] EWHC 3595 (TCC)United KingdomCited for the principle that the issue is the level of generality at which to consider the question of causation.
Vera Dallas v L P Martin Co LtdJamaica Supreme CourtYes[2018] JMSC Civ 78JamaicaCited for the principle that there is a distinction between causation on the liability issue and causation on the quantum issue.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
State Courts Act 1970 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Causation
  • Negligence
  • Assessment of damages
  • Interlocutory judgment
  • Personal injury
  • Motor vehicle accident
  • Breach of duty
  • Damage
  • Liability
  • Single Joint Expert

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • causation
  • damages
  • motor vehicle accident
  • assessment
  • Singapore
  • personal injury

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Causation95
Negligence95
Damages90
Torts80
Personal Injury Law70
Motor Vehicle Accidents65
Civil Procedure60
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Personal Injury Law