Case Details
- Citation: [2001] SGHC 51
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2001-03-20
- Judges: Woo Bih Li JC
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Tan Shwu Leng
- Defendant/Respondent: Singapore Airlines Limited and Another
- Legal Areas: No catchword
- Statutes Referenced: Retirement Age Act
- Cases Cited: [2001] SGHC 51, Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority [1980] AC 174, Dews v National Coal Board [1988] 1 AC 1, Balasubramaniam s/o Rajoo a minor suing by his father v Singapore Airlines Limited and another
- Judgment Length: 15 pages, 7,670 words
Summary
This case involves a claim for damages by Tan Shwu Leng, a leading stewardess employed by Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA), who was injured during a mid-air incident on a flight from Singapore to Dhaka in 1994. The High Court of Singapore had to assess the damages owed to Ms. Tan after she successfully sued SIA and the aircraft manufacturer Airbus Industrie for negligence and breach of statutory duty. The key issues were the calculation of Ms. Tan's loss of pre-trial earnings and future earnings, as well as the appropriate costs order given that SIA had made a settlement offer prior to the assessment of damages.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The case arose from a mid-air incident on board flight SQ 420 from Singapore to Dhaka on 25 November 1994, as a result of which the plaintiff Tan Shwu Leng (Ms Tan) was injured. Her main injury was a fracture of the left humerus, which led to her being grounded instead of undertaking cabin crew duty with its various benefits. At the material time, Ms. Tan was employed by Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA) as a Leading Stewardess (LSS).
On 3 November 1997, Ms. Tan commenced an action against SIA for damages for negligence and alternatively breach of statutory duty. Airbus Industrie, the manufacturers of the aircraft, were subsequently joined as co-defendants. Interlocutory judgment was entered against both Defendants on 19 September 1999 for damages to be assessed.
After a four and a half day assessment, the Assistant Registrar (AR) awarded Ms. Tan $13,000 for pain and suffering, $77,491.60 for loss of pre-trial earnings, and $225,534.21 for loss of future earnings. The total amount payable to Ms. Tan including interest was less than $350,000.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were: 1) Whether the deduction of $91,302.12 from Ms. Tan's pre-trial earnings for expenses she would have incurred was appropriate, and 2) Whether the costs order made by the AR, limiting Ms. Tan's costs up to the date of a settlement offer made by the Defendants, was correct.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the issue of pre-trial earnings, the court examined the relevant legal principles from the cases of Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority and Dews v National Coal Board. The court found that the deduction of expenses that Ms. Tan would have incurred, such as meals and transport while overseas, was in line with the principle of avoiding over-compensation of the plaintiff.
The court rejected Ms. Tan's argument that the 40% deduction for expenses was excessive, noting that her own evidence had conceded that damages for loss of earnings should take into account expenses normally incurred while flying. The court also found that Ms. Tan had not effectively challenged the 40% figure provided by SIA's witness, Peter Chong.
However, the court agreed with Ms. Tan's submission that the 40% deduction should not apply to the Inflight Allowance, as it was more of an incentive allowance than a reimbursement for expenses. The court also accepted that the 40% deduction should not apply to the Turnaround Allowance.
On the issue of costs, the court examined the settlement offer made by the Defendants prior to the assessment of damages. The court found that the AR's order limiting Ms. Tan's costs up to the date of the offer was incorrect, as the offer amount was less than the total damages eventually awarded. The court therefore ordered the Defendants to pay Ms. Tan's costs up to the date of the AR's decision, including the costs of preparing for the quantum assessment.
What Was the Outcome?
The court made the following orders: 1) For pain and suffering, no change to the AR's award of $13,000. 2) For loss of pre-trial earnings, the court added $2,736.31 and $14,700 back to the sum awarded by the AR, with interest at 3% per annum from the date of the accident to the date of the AR's decision. 3) For loss of future earnings, no change to the AR's award of $225,534.21. 4) The Defendants were ordered to pay Ms. Tan's costs up to the date of the settlement offer, including the costs of preparing for the quantum assessment. 5) Costs from the date of the offer to the date of the AR's decision were fixed at $1,000 to be paid by the Defendants to Ms. Tan. 6) The Defendants were also ordered to pay Ms. Tan's costs of the appeal, fixed at $5,000.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the principles to be applied in assessing damages for loss of earnings in personal injury cases. The court's analysis of the appropriate deductions for expenses the plaintiff would have incurred, and the treatment of different types of allowances, will be relevant to future cases involving similar claims.
The case also highlights the importance of settlement offers in costs orders, and the need for courts to carefully consider the overall fairness of the costs outcome, particularly where a settlement offer is less than the final damages awarded. This will help shape the approach taken by parties in making and responding to settlement offers in personal injury litigation.
More broadly, the case demonstrates the Singapore courts' careful and principled approach to assessing damages, drawing on relevant legal authorities and the specific facts of the case to reach a fair outcome. This will provide guidance and assurance to both plaintiffs and defendants in similar disputes.
Legislation Referenced
- Retirement Age Act
Cases Cited
- [2001] SGHC 51
- Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority [1980] AC 174
- Dews v National Coal Board [1988] 1 AC 1
- Balasubramaniam s/o Rajoo a minor suing by his father v Singapore Airlines Limited and another
Source Documents
This article analyses [2001] SGHC 51 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.