Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng: Double Recovery Rule & Government Subsidies in Personal Injury Claims
In Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether government subsidies and grants should be deducted from damages awarded to a plaintiff in a negligence suit arising from a road accident. The court, with Steven Chong JCA delivering the grounds of decision, allowed the appeal, holding that the judge below failed to properly consider whether the respondent was intended to enjoy the subsidies and grants over and above what she might recover from the appellant. The court clarified the test and objective indicia for determining whether payouts fall within exceptions to the rule against double recovery.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal 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
Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the rule against double recovery in personal injury claims, addressing government subsidies and tortfeasor liability.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lo Kok Jong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Eng Beng | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- On 9 January 2020, the respondent was hit by a vehicle driven by the appellant while crossing a road.
- The respondent sustained personal injuries, including a closed trimalleolar fracture of her right ankle.
- The respondent filed a negligence suit against the appellant, seeking general and special damages.
- Interlocutory judgment was entered in the respondent’s favour at 85% against the appellant with damages to be assessed.
- The Deputy Registrar declined to award $39,515.08 claimed for medical expenses paid by government subsidies and grants.
- The Judge allowed the appeal, finding that the subsidies and grants fell within the Benevolence Exception.
- The appellant appealed, arguing that the rule against double recovery should apply.
5. Formal Citations
- Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng, Civil Appeal No 4 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 28
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent hit by vehicle driven by appellant | |
| District Court Suit No 1467 of 2020 filed | |
| Appeal heard and allowed | |
| Grounds of Decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Double Recovery
- Outcome: The court held that government subsidies and grants should be deducted from damages payable by a tortfeasor, clarifying the test for exceptions to the rule against double recovery.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Exceptions to the rule against double recovery
- Insurance Exception
- Benevolence Exception
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 655
- [2013] 4 SLR 1317
- [2017] 1 SLR 918
- [1874–80] All ER Rep 195
- [1947] NI 167
- [2000] 3 SLR(R) 31
- [1970] AC 1
- [1961] Qd R 277
- [1988] AC 514
- [2004] 1 WLR 2683
- [1989] AC 807
- [2021] SGHC 10
- [1952] 1 KB 26
- [1980] 2 MLJ 39
- [2013] 3 SCR 985
- [1994] HCA 50
- [2018] 1 SLR 1037
- [1997] 2 SCR 315
- [1983] HCA 16
- [1987] 1 WLR 336
- [2009] HCA 52
- [1961] HCA 48
- [2022] 1 SLR 689
- [2023] SGDC 307
- [2023] SGHC 63
- [2022] SGDC 130
- [1964] AC 326
- [1972] 1 QB 65
- [1986] 1 All ER 332
- Negligence
- Outcome: The respondent filed a negligence suit against the appellant, seeking general and special damages.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- General Damages
- Special 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 655 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damages are generally compensatory in nature. |
| 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 the aim of damages is to place the plaintiff in the same position as if the tort had not occurred. |
| ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 918 | Singapore | Cited regarding punitive or restitutionary damages. |
| Bradburn v Great Western Railway Co | Exchequer Division | Yes | [1874–80] All ER Rep 195 | England and Wales | Cited as the earliest articulation of the Insurance Exception to the rule against double recovery. |
| Redpath v Belfast and County Down Railway | Northern Ireland High Court | Yes | [1947] NI 167 | Northern Ireland | Cited for the Benevolence Exception to the rule against double recovery. |
| The “MARA” | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 31 | Singapore | Cited to show that the list of exceptions to the rule against double recovery remains open. |
| Parry v Cleaver | House of Lords | Yes | [1970] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding disability or unemployment benefits paid out by the plaintiff’s employer or the government. |
| National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne | Supreme Court of Queensland | Yes | [1961] Qd R 277 | Australia | Cited regarding disability or unemployment benefits paid out by the plaintiff’s employer or the government. |
| Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills | House of Lords | Yes | [1988] AC 514 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding payouts from insurance plans taken out and paid for by the plaintiff’s employer. |
| Gaca v Pirelli | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 WLR 2683 | England and Wales | Cited regarding payouts from insurance plans taken out and paid for by the plaintiff’s employer. |
| Hodgson v Trapp | House of Lords | Yes | [1989] AC 807 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding medical subsidies provided by the government. |
| Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 10 | Singapore | Cited regarding causation in insurance payouts. |
| Payne v Railway Executive | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] 1 KB 26 | England and Wales | Cited regarding causation in the context of the Benevolence Exception. |
| Lim Kiat Boon & ors v Lim Seu Kong & anor | High Court | Yes | [1980] 2 MLJ 39 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the principle that generosity of others is res inter alios acta. |
| IBM Canada Ltd v Waterman | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2013] 3 SCR 985 | Canada | Cited regarding causation and the deductibility of collateral benefits. |
| Manser v Spry | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1994] HCA 50 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the default rule against double recovery should be reverted to in the absence of intention. |
| Minichit Bunhom v Jazali bin Kastari and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1037 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Insurance Exception and the fruits of thrift and foresight. |
| Sylvester v British Columbia | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1997] 2 SCR 315 | Canada | Cited regarding whether the payment is in the nature of an indemnity for loss. |
| Redding v Lee | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1983] HCA 16 | Australia | Cited regarding whether unemployment benefits can be said to be a substitute for wages. |
| Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] 1 WLR 336 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the source of the payment. |
| Zheng v Cai | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2009] HCA 52 | Australia | Cited regarding the difficulty associated with ascertaining the precise state of mind of the provider. |
| Graham v Baker | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1961] HCA 48 | Australia | Cited regarding payments made pursuant to a contract. |
| Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 689 | Singapore | Cited regarding government subsidies. |
| Leong Yock Mui v Lek Long Peow | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 307 | Singapore | Cited regarding the difficulties generated by the Repayment Order. |
| Eng Beng v Lo Kok Jong | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 63 | Singapore | The judgment being appealed. |
| Eng Beng v Lo Kok Jong | District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 130 | Singapore | The decision of the Deputy Registrar. |
| West v Shephard | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] AC 326 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding free medical treatment provided by the National Health Service. |
| Mitchell v Mulholland (No. 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] 1 QB 65 | England and Wales | Cited regarding free medical treatment provided by the National Health Service. |
| Housecroft v Burnett | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] 1 All ER 332 | England and Wales | Cited regarding free medical treatment provided by the National Health Service. |
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 |
| Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 | United Kingdom |
| Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Double Recovery
- Government Subsidies
- Personal Injury
- Negligence
- Insurance Exception
- Benevolence Exception
- Damages
- Medical Expenses
- Tortfeasor
- Collateral Benefits
15.2 Keywords
- double recovery
- government subsidies
- personal injury
- negligence
- Singapore
- tort
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Measure of Damages | 95 |
| Double Recovery | 90 |
| Personal Injury | 90 |
| Negligence | 85 |
| Collateral Benefits | 80 |
| Automobile Accidents | 80 |
| Torts | 75 |
| Government Subsidies | 70 |
| Insurance | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Damages
- Civil Procedure
- Personal Injury