Case Details
- Citation: [2003] SGHC 275
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2003-11-04
- Judges: Woo Bih Li J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Tan Harry and Another
- Defendant/Respondent: Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius and Another
- Legal Areas: Courts and Jurisdiction — Appeals, Damages — Aggravation, Damages — Measure of damages
- Statutes Referenced: Fatal Accidents Act
- Cases Cited: [1990] SLR 331, [2003] SGHC 275
- Judgment Length: 23 pages, 13,020 words
Summary
This case involves an appeal against the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, Tan Harry and Veronica Yeo Kwee Cheng, who were the parents of Philip Tan Kok Leong, the deceased. Philip died after an anaesthetic procedure administered by the first defendant, Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius, an anaesthetist, at the hospital of the second defendant, Gleneagles Hospital Limited. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence, and liability was conceded. The main issues on appeal were the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs as dependants, the measure of damages for the estate claim, and the award of aggravated damages and costs.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Philip Tan Kok Leong, the 35-year-old son of the plaintiffs, Tan Harry and Veronica Yeo Kwee Cheng, died on 1 October 1999 at Gleneagles Hospital after an anaesthetic procedure administered by the first defendant, Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius, the anaesthetist. The plaintiffs, as dependants and administrators of Philip's estate, sued the defendants for negligence. Liability was conceded by the defendants, and interlocutory judgment was entered on the basis of 100% liability against them.
After hearing evidence and submissions, an Assistant Registrar (AR) made orders on 26 May 2003, awarding the plaintiffs a dependency claim of S$180,580.80 and an estate claim of S$54,252.86. The plaintiffs, the Anaesthetist, and Gleneagles Hospital were all dissatisfied with certain aspects of the AR's orders and filed separate appeals.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether the damages awarded to the plaintiffs as dependants should be increased, specifically in terms of the multiplicand and multiplier used to calculate the dependency claim.
- Whether the special damages awarded to the estate should be increased, including the plaintiffs' costs in respect of the Coroner's Inquiry into Philip's death.
- Whether the amount awarded for Philip's pain and suffering should be increased.
- Whether aggravated damages should have been awarded.
- Whether any benefit accruing to the dependants by reason of Philip's death should be deducted from the dependency claim.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the issue of the dependency claim, the court considered the plaintiffs' arguments for increasing the multiplicand and multiplier. The plaintiffs argued that the multiplicand should be based on a higher median salary rather than Philip's last drawn salary, and that the multiplier should be increased. However, the court was not persuaded by these arguments.
The court found that while Philip had enjoyed some salary increases during his time at KPMG, there was no positive evidence from KPMG about the likelihood of future salary increases. The court also noted that an increase in Philip's income did not necessarily mean an increase in the amount he contributed to his aged parents. Given the lack of concrete evidence from the plaintiffs about the increase in their financial support from Philip over the years, the court declined to adopt a higher median salary figure and instead upheld the AR's use of Philip's last drawn salary as the basis for calculating the multiplicand.
On the plaintiffs' other arguments for increasing the multiplicand, such as the value of Philip's alleged services and his contributions to the renovation of the family home, the court was not persuaded that these should be included in the calculation, as they were not supported by sufficient evidence.
Regarding the Anaesthetist's appeal, the court agreed that certain assets inherited by the plaintiffs should be deducted from the dependency claim, as the law requires that any benefit accruing to the dependants by reason of the deceased's death must be taken into account.
On the issue of special damages, the court allowed Gleneagles' appeal to reduce the award by S$20,000, which the AR had included as part of the plaintiffs' costs in respect of the Coroner's Inquiry. The court found that these costs were not properly pleaded as special damages and should not have been included in the award.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals on the issues of increasing the award for pain and suffering and granting aggravated damages, finding that the AR's awards were appropriate in the circumstances.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and allowed the appeals of the Anaesthetist and Gleneagles Hospital. The final orders were:
- The dependency claim awarded to the plaintiffs was reduced to account for the assets they had inherited.
- The special damages awarded to the estate were reduced by S$20,000, which represented the plaintiffs' costs in respect of the Coroner's Inquiry.
- The awards for pain and suffering and aggravated damages remained unchanged.
- The costs orders were adjusted to reflect the partial success of the Anaesthetist's and Gleneagles' appeals.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides guidance on the principles and approach to be taken in assessing damages in a negligence case where the deceased has died. It highlights the importance of the plaintiffs providing clear and concrete evidence to support their claims for increased damages, particularly in relation to the multiplicand and multiplier used to calculate the dependency claim.
The case also reinforces the legal principle that any benefit accruing to the dependants by reason of the deceased's death must be taken into account in the assessment of damages. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for special damages to be properly pleaded in order to be recoverable.
The case is significant for legal practitioners, as it sets out the court's reasoning and the relevant legal principles to be applied in similar cases involving claims for damages by dependants and the deceased's estate.
Legislation Referenced
- Fatal Accidents Act
Cases Cited
- [1990] SLR 331
- [2003] SGHC 275
Source Documents
This article analyses [2003] SGHC 275 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.