Case Details
- Citation: [2017] SGCA 29
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Decision Date: 2017-04-24
- Coram: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (by his litigation representative Pang Choy Chun)
- Defendant/Respondent: Yeo Chye Huat and another appeal
- Area of Law: Damages — Measure of damages
- Key Legislation: A of the Civil Law Act 1956, Civil Law Act, Civil Law Act 1956, Damages Act, Damages Act 1996
- Judgment Length: 26 pages (13,565 words)
Summary
7 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Sundaresh Menon CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA Counsel Name(s) : P Padman and Hue Jia Pei (KSCGP Juris LLP) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2016 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 52 of 2016; Renuka d/o Karuppan Chettiar (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners) for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2016 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 52 of 2016. Parties : QUEK YEN FEI KENNETH SUING BY LITIGATION REPRESENTIVE PANG CHOY CHUN — YEO CHYE HUA
Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (by his litigation representative Pang Choy Chun) v Yeo Chye Huat and another appeal [2017] SGCA 29 Case Number : Civil Appeals Nos 45 and 52 of 2016 Decision Date : 24 April 2017 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Sundaresh Menon CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA Counsel Name(s) : P Padman and Hue Jia Pei (KSCGP Juris LLP) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2016 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 52 of 2016; Renuka d/o Karuppan Chettiar (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners) for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2016 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 52 of ...
What Were the Facts of This Case?
2 Quek was born on 17 November 1991, and is 25 years old today. He stopped his studies in March 2007 at 15 years of age, dropping out three months into his repeat year for the Secondary Three Normal (Technical) course. He enlisted for National Service on 4 March 2011. 3 On 11 August 2011, when Quek was still in National Service, he was riding his motorcycle when a taxi driven by Yeo collided into him (the “Accident”). His right foot was severely mangled and his right leg had to be amputated below the knee. His right collarbone was also fractured. 4 Quek brought an action in negligence against Yeo.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal questions in this case concerned Damages — Measure of damages. The court was tasked with determining the applicable legal principles and their application to the specific facts before it.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including A of the Civil Law Act 1956, Civil Law Act, Civil Law Act 1956, Damages Act, Damages Act 1996, and considered how these provisions should be interpreted and applied in the circumstances of this case.
In reaching its decision, the court reviewed 6 prior authorities, carefully analysing how earlier decisions had addressed similar legal questions and whether those principles should be applied, distinguished, or developed further in the present case.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Pain and suffering 41 We agree with the reasons given by the Judge for the $10,000.00 uplift from the upper limit of the $40,000.00 to $70,000.00 range in the Guidelines for the pain and suffering from a below-knee amputation (above at [13]). The Judge had expressly considered the award of $50,000.00 in Pang Teck Kong (see the GD at [12]). Moreover, Pang Teck Kong was decided in 1992, and the award made to Quek had to take into account the changes in purchasing power since then. Accordingly, we uphold the Judge’s award of $80,000.00 for the pain and suffering from the below-knee amputation.
What Was the Outcome?
89 Based on a multiplier of 20 years and a multiplicand of $4,295.30 per annum ($3,585.30 + $710.00 = $4,295.30), we award Quek a total of $85,906.00 in FME in respect of his prostheses and his aqua limb. 90 We set aside the Judge’s award of $7,276.00 in FME for the costs of the single K4 prosthesis purchased by Quek. 91 We affirm the Judge’s award of provisional damages in respect of the surgical excision of Quek’s neuroma and the surgical treatment of Quek’s right collarbone. LFE/LEC
Why Does This Case Matter?
This judgment is significant for the development of Damages — Measure of damages law in Singapore. It provides authoritative guidance from the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore on the interpretation and application of the relevant legal principles in this area.
The court's interpretation of A of the Civil Law Act 1956, Civil Law Act, Civil Law Act 1956 will be of particular interest to practitioners advising clients in this area. The analysis of the statutory provisions and their application to the facts of this case may inform future litigation strategy and legal advice.
The judgment engages with 6 prior authorities, synthesising the existing case law and clarifying the applicable legal principles. This comprehensive review of the authorities makes the decision a useful reference point for legal research in this area.
Legal professionals, academics, and students may find this judgment instructive in understanding how Singapore courts approach questions of Damages — Measure of damages. The decision also illustrates the court's methodology in weighing evidence, applying statutory provisions, and exercising judicial discretion.
Legislation Referenced
- A of the Civil Law Act 1956
- Civil Law Act
- Civil Law Act 1956
- Damages Act
- Damages Act 1996
- First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- UK Government Act
Cases Cited
- [1992] SGHC 31
- [1997] SGHC 289
- [2012] SGHC 33
- [2013] SGHC 132
- [2016] SGHC 46
- [2017] SGCA 29
Source Documents
Detailed Analysis of the Judgment
Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (by his litigation representative Pang Choy Chun) v Yeo Chye Huat and another appeal [2017] SGCA 29 Case Number : Civil Appeals Nos 45 and 52 of 2016 Decision Date : 24 April 2017 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Sundaresh Menon CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA Counsel Name(s) : P Padman and Hue Jia Pei (KSCGP Juris LLP) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2016 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 52 of 2016; Renuka d/o Karuppan Chettiar (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners) for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2016 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 52 of 2016.
Procedural History
This matter came before the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore by way of appeal. The judgment was delivered on 2017-04-24 by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA. The court considered the submissions of both parties, reviewed the evidence, and examined the relevant authorities before arriving at its decision.
The full judgment runs to 26 pages (13,565 words), reflecting the thoroughness of the court's analysis. The court's reasoning engages with questions of Damages — Measure of damages, and the decision is likely to be of interest to practitioners and scholars working in these areas of Singapore law.
This article summarises and analyses [2017] SGCA 29 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.