Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 172
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-08-28
- Judges: Audrey Lim J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Fauzi bin Noh
- Defendant/Respondent: Zulkepli bin Husain (MSIG Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, intervener)
- Legal Areas: Damages — Measure of damages
- Statutes Referenced: None specified
- Cases Cited: [2025] SGHC 172, [2025] SGHCR 22, [2010] 2 SLR 1154
- Judgment Length: 16 pages, 3,936 words
Summary
This case involves a claim for damages by Fauzi bin Noh (the Plaintiff) against Zulkepli bin Husain (the Defendant) arising from a collision between the Defendant's lorry and the Plaintiff's motorcycle. The High Court of Singapore considered the Plaintiff's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's (AR) decision on the assessment of pre-trial loss of earnings (pre-trial LOE) for the period following the termination of the Plaintiff's employment and the commencement of the damages assessment hearing.
The key issue was whether the Plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his losses, and whether the AR erred in reducing the Plaintiff's pre-trial LOE award for the second period. The High Court ultimately allowed the Plaintiff's appeal, finding that the Plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his losses and that the Defendant and intervener had failed to prove otherwise.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The Plaintiff, a Malaysian citizen, was the rider of a motorcycle involved in a collision with a lorry driven by the Defendant on 1 February 2018. Prior to the accident, the Plaintiff had been working in the micro-piling industry in Singapore, employed by Drill Gems Engineering Pte Ltd (Drill Gems) since March 2015 with a last drawn monthly salary of $3,500.
The Plaintiff's employment with Drill Gems was terminated on 21 February 2019 due to the injuries he suffered in the accident, which constrained his ability to perform his work. After the termination, the Plaintiff took on various jobs in Malaysia, earning a total of RM66,619 during the period from March 2019 to January 2024.
The Plaintiff commenced legal proceedings against the Defendant, and on 16 August 2021, a consent interlocutory judgment was entered in the Plaintiff's favor for 85% of the damages to be assessed. The assessment of damages hearing was held before the AR from 15 January 2024 to 13 September 2024.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was the assessment of the Plaintiff's pre-trial LOE, specifically for the period from the termination of his employment with Drill Gems until the commencement of the damages assessment hearing (the "2nd Period").
The Plaintiff appealed against the AR's decision to reduce the pre-trial LOE award for the 2nd Period, arguing that the AR erred in using a figure of $1,750 per month (half of his last drawn salary) instead of the full $3,500 per month, and in further deducting the amount of RM66,619 that the Plaintiff had earned from various jobs in Malaysia during that period.
The central question was whether the Plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his losses, and whether the Defendant and intervener had discharged the burden of proving that the Plaintiff had failed to do so.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court, per Audrey Lim J, began by clarifying the AR's computation of the pre-trial LOE for the 2nd Period. The court noted that the 2nd Period should have started from March 2019 (rather than May 2019 as the AR had calculated) and that the multiplier should have been 59 months, not 66 months.
The court then examined the principle of mitigation of losses, noting that the aggrieved party (in this case, the Plaintiff) must take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss, and that the burden of proving a failure to mitigate falls on the defaulting party (the Defendant and intervener). The court emphasized that the standard of reasonableness takes into account the subjective circumstances of the aggrieved party.
In analyzing the Plaintiff's actions, the court agreed with the Plaintiff's counsel that the Plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by taking on various jobs in Malaysia after the accident. The court noted that this was not a case where the Plaintiff had "just sat down and folded his arms waiting for his compensation or [was] trying to maximise the compensation due to him".
The court further noted that the AR had recognized, in relation to the assessment of the Plaintiff's loss of future earnings, that the Plaintiff had "attempted to find employment in Malaysia 'in spite of the effects of the injuries that still lingered' and that this showed that he 'had made reasonable efforts to mitigate the loss'." The court found this to be inconsistent with the AR's finding that the Plaintiff should have attempted to find a job in Singapore to properly mitigate his pre-trial LOE.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal, finding that the Plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his losses and that the Defendant and intervener had failed to discharge the burden of proving otherwise.
The court held that the AR erred in reducing the Plaintiff's pre-trial LOE award for the 2nd Period by using a figure of $1,750 per month (half of the Plaintiff's last drawn salary) and by further deducting the amount of RM66,619 that the Plaintiff had earned from various jobs in Malaysia during that period.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the principles of mitigation of losses in personal injury cases. It emphasizes that the standard of reasonableness for mitigation measures must take into account the subjective circumstances of the aggrieved party, and that the burden of proving a failure to mitigate falls on the defaulting party.
The case also highlights the need for consistency in a court's factual findings and the application of the mitigation principle. The High Court's decision to allow the Plaintiff's appeal underscores the importance of a holistic assessment of the aggrieved party's efforts to mitigate their losses, rather than a narrow or inconsistent approach.
This judgment is likely to be of significant practical importance to personal injury practitioners, as it reinforces the need for a fair and nuanced application of the mitigation principle, and the potential consequences for a court's failure to do so.
Legislation Referenced
- None specified
Cases Cited
- [2025] SGHC 172
- [2025] SGHCR 22
- [2010] 2 SLR 1154 ("The Asia Star")
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 172 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.