"In light of the inherent difficulties in quantifying the loss, the Court has to do what it can to arrive at a sum which is fair taking account of the available evidence." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 44
Case Information
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 102 (Para 0)
- Court: In the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Para 0)
- Case Number: Suit No 512 of 2020 (Para 0)
- Coram: Andrew Ang SJ (Para 0)
- Hearing Dates: 15–17, 21, 22 September 2021; 12 November 2021; 14 January 2022; 14 February 2022; 28 February 2022 (Para 0)
- Judgment Date: 5 May 2022 (Para 0)
- Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Khelvin Xu Cunhan and Lim Yuan Jing (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) (Para 164)
- Counsel for the Defendant: Goh Choon Wah and Lee Swee Loong, Johnston (Characterist LLC) (Para 164)
- Area of Law: Damages — Measure of damages — Personal injuries cases; Damages — Assessment (Para 0)
- Judgment Length: Not answerable from the extraction (Para 0)
Summary
This was an assessment of damages following a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, in which judgment in default had already been entered for the plaintiffs and the court was left to determine quantum only. The accident occurred on 29 June 2017 at about 11.28pm, when the defendant collided into the plaintiffs’ vehicle on the Seletar Expressway, and the court later assessed the plaintiffs’ claims for pain and suffering, pre-trial loss of earnings, future earnings, and future medical and care expenses. (Paras 1-3)
The judgment is notable for its careful, item-by-item approach to proof and valuation. The court repeatedly emphasised that where the evidence made precision difficult, it still had to arrive at a fair figure based on the available material, including medical reports, bank statements, occupational wage tables, actuarial tables, and comparable authorities. That approach was applied separately to each plaintiff and to each head of loss, with the court distinguishing between injuries that were directly attributable to the accident and those that were not. (Paras 11-18, 23, 29, 44, 59, 63, 67, 84, 126)
Ultimately, the court awarded substantial damages to both plaintiffs. For Mr Wee, the court allowed damages for pain and suffering, pre-trial loss of earnings, agreed medical expenses, and loss of future earnings. For Mdm Yew, the court allowed damages for pain and suffering, pre-trial loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, and significant future medical and care expenses, while also dealing in detail with psychiatric injury, orthopaedic injuries, and the consequences of amputation and related complications. Costs were reserved for further hearing. (Paras 158-164)
What Were the Core Issues the High Court Had to Decide for Mr Wee?
The court identified four principal issues in relation to the first plaintiff, Mr Wee Lai Soon: whether the alleged injuries were directly caused by the accident; what award should be made for pain and suffering; whether he was entitled to pre-trial loss of earnings and, if so, in what amount; and whether he was entitled to loss of future earnings and, if so, in what amount. The court expressly framed these issues in the Joint Opening Statement and then addressed them sequentially. (Para 6)
"In relation to the first plaintiff – Mr Wee Lai Soon (“Mr Wee”), the issues for determination are as follows: (i) whether the alleged injuries suffered by Mr Wee… were directly caused by the Accident; (ii) what the award of damages for pain and suffering for Mr Wee’s injuries should be; (iii) whether Mr Wee is entitled to a claim for pre-trial loss of earnings and if so, what the quantum should be; and (iv) whether Mr Wee is entitled to a claim for loss of future earnings and if so, what the quantum should be." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 6
On causation, the court accepted that Mr Wee’s injuries included left shoulder and back injuries, and it considered the medical evidence in detail, including Dr Yam’s report diagnosing cervical and lumbar spondylosis and the later report from Dr Chua. The court also had to deal with the defendant’s attempt to attribute Mr Wee’s inability to continue working to his wife’s incapacity rather than to his own injuries. The court rejected that narrow framing and instead examined the practical effect of the accident on Mr Wee’s employability and earning capacity. (Paras 11-18)
The court’s reasoning on earnings loss was especially important. It accepted that Mr Wee was not physically incapable of all work, but held that the injuries made him “practically unemployable” in the circumstances. That finding allowed the court to assess loss of earnings using the best available evidence, including bank statements showing average monthly cash deposits and the Ministry of Manpower’s Occupational Wage Tables, while making appropriate adjustments for uncertainty. The court then used actuarial tables to determine the multiplier for future loss. (Paras 14, 18, 23, 29-30, 44-47)
How Did the Court Assess Mr Wee’s Pain and Suffering?
The court began by examining the medical evidence relating to Mr Wee’s injuries. Dr Yam’s 30 July 2019 Medical Report identified cervical and lumbar spondylosis, and the court considered the nature of the injuries and the extent to which they were attributable to the accident. The plaintiffs relied on comparable authorities, including Ting Heng Mee v Sin Shing Fresh Fruit Pte Ltd, to support the quantum sought for the shoulder injury. (Paras 9, 11)
"In Dr Yam’s 30 July 2019 Medical Report, he identified ‘cervical & lumbar spondylosis’ in his diagnosis of Mr Wee’s injuries…" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 11
The court then compared the injury profile with the precedent authorities cited by counsel. Ting Heng Mee was used as a comparator for a left shoulder tendon injury, and the court considered the extent of pain, recovery, and residual symptoms in that case as a guide to a fair award. The court did not mechanically transplant the earlier award; rather, it used the precedent as one reference point in a broader evaluative exercise. (Para 9)
In the end, the court awarded Mr Wee $23,000 for pain and suffering, as reflected in the conclusion table. That award was part of the court’s overall itemised assessment and was made after considering the medical evidence, the nature of the injuries, and the comparative authorities. (Para 158)
"In respect of Mr Wee, the following items in JOS Annex A are awarded: … 2–3 Pain and suffering $23,000.00 …" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 158
Why Did the Court Accept Mr Wee’s Claim for Pre-Trial Loss of Earnings?
The defendant argued that Mr Wee’s post-accident inability to continue working was not caused by his own injuries but by the fact that his wife, who was the main cook at the canteen stall they ran together, was incapacitated after the accident. The court did not accept that the matter could be reduced to that single explanation. Instead, it examined the evidence of Mr Wee’s work pattern, the bank statements, and the practical realities of his condition after the accident. (Para 17)
"First, counsel for the defendant argued that the real reason Mr Wee did not continue to work after the accident was that his wife, who was the main cook at the canteen stall that they ran together, was incapacitated as a result of the Accident." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 17
The court found that although Mr Wee was not wholly unable to work, the injuries made him “practically unemployable.” That finding was central to the court’s approach. It meant that the court could not insist on exact proof of every dollar lost, because the circumstances themselves made precision difficult. The court therefore relied on the available evidence and used a fair approximation rather than a rigid formula. (Para 18)
"Although the extent of Mr Wee’s injuries was not such as to render him physically unable to work altogether (even with the pre-existing knee problem), it made him practically unemployable." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 18
To quantify the loss, the court accepted the parties’ agreement that the Ministry of Manpower’s Occupational Wage Tables were a useful starting point. It then used those tables to derive a monthly wage figure, and it applied a discount to reflect uncertainty over the relevant period. The court also relied on actuarial tables to determine the multiplier for future loss. This produced an award of $58,500 for pre-trial loss of earnings and $65,426.40 for loss of future earnings. (Paras 23, 29-30, 44-47, 158)
"Happily in response to my request for further submissions, the parties have been able to agree on reference being made to the Ministry of Manpower’s Occupational Wage Tables, 30 June 2020 (the “Occupational Wage Tables”) as a helpful starting point in determining the measure of Mr Wee’s loss of earnings." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 23
"Accordingly, I award Mr Wee in respect of loss of future earnings the sum of $65,426.40 (ie, $1,170 x 4.66 x 12)." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 30
"In the round, I will adopt a 20% discount for the period of 17 months from April 2020 to the end of the pre-trial period in August 2021." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 46
"Accordingly, the pre-trial loss of earnings is the aggregate of ($1,800 x 33) and ($1440 x 17), ie, $83,880 and I award the same." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 47
How Did the Court Deal with Mr Wee’s Future Earnings and the Actuarial Evidence?
The court’s treatment of future earnings was methodical. It first identified the appropriate monthly figure, then turned to the multiplier. The court expressly noted that, based on the actuarial tables, the multiplier was 4.66 years. It then applied that multiplier to the monthly wage figure to arrive at the award for future loss. This was a classic example of the court using actuarial evidence to translate a practical impairment into a monetary award. (Paras 29-30)
"Based on the Actuarial Tables, the multiplier is 4.66 years." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 29
The court’s reasoning was anchored in the broader principle that, where quantification is inherently difficult, the court must do what it can with the evidence available. That principle was not confined to Mr Wee’s future earnings claim; it informed the entire assessment exercise. The court did not treat the absence of perfect proof as fatal. Instead, it used the best available evidence, made a reasoned allowance for uncertainty, and arrived at a figure that it considered fair. (Paras 44-47)
"In light of the inherent difficulties in quantifying the loss, the Court has to do what it can to arrive at a sum which is fair taking account of the available evidence." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 44
That approach is reflected in the final award. The court awarded Mr Wee $65,426.40 for loss of future earnings, and it included that amount in the final table of damages. The award demonstrates the court’s willingness to use actuarial methodology where appropriate, but only after grounding the exercise in the actual evidence of the plaintiff’s post-accident circumstances. (Paras 30, 158)
What Were the Main Issues in Mdm Yew’s Claim?
For the second plaintiff, Mdm Yew Kwai Lin, the court again framed the issues in a structured way. The questions included whether the alleged injuries were directly caused by the accident, what award should be made for pain and suffering, and what awards should be made for pre-trial loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, and future medical and care expenses. The judgment shows that Mdm Yew’s claim was more medically complex than Mr Wee’s, involving psychiatric injury, fractures, amputation, and other sequelae. (Para 6)
"In relation to the second plaintiff – Mdm Yew Kwai Lin (“Mdm Yew”), the issues comprise: (i) whether the alleged injuries suffered by Mdm Yew… were directly caused by the Accident; (ii) what the award of damages for pain and suffering for Mdm Yew’s injuries should be; …" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 6
The court considered Mdm Yew’s psychiatric condition, including the diagnosis of major depressive disorder by Dr Ang at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. It also considered the physical injuries and complications that followed, including fractures, amputation, and the need for future medical intervention. The court’s analysis was therefore not limited to a single injury category; it was a multi-layered assessment of overlapping physical and psychological harm. (Paras 63, 99, 100, 113, 126)
As with Mr Wee, the court relied on medical reports and comparable cases to calibrate the award. But because Mdm Yew’s injuries were more severe and more varied, the court’s analysis was correspondingly more extensive. It considered psychiatric injury precedents, orthopaedic injury precedents, and authorities dealing with amputation and post-traumatic complications. (Paras 66-68, 75, 77, 87-89, 100, 113)
How Did the Court Approach Mdm Yew’s Psychiatric Injury and Pain and Suffering?
The court noted that Mdm Yew sought treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital under the care of Dr Ang, who diagnosed her as suffering from major depressive disorder. The defendant attempted to rely on Law Kin Ying v Lim Hong Hock, but the court rejected that authority as factually dissimilar. Instead, the court turned to cases that more closely reflected the psychiatric consequences of traumatic injury. (Paras 63, 66-68)
"Mdm Yew sought treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital under the care of Dr Ang who diagnosed her as suffering from Major Depressive Disorder." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 63
"The precedent relied upon by the defendant, Law Kin Ying (administratrix of the estate of Lo Hon Man) and others v Lim Hong Hock [2015] SGHCR 14 bears no factual resemblance at all to the present case." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 66
The plaintiffs relied on Ng Lay Peng and Ong Tean Hoe as comparators. Ng Lay Peng involved an award for major depressive disorder after a low-speed collision, while Ong Tean Hoe involved post-traumatic depression after the amputation of both hands. The court used these authorities to situate Mdm Yew’s psychiatric injury within the spectrum of awards for trauma-induced depression. (Paras 67-68)
"In Ng Lay Peng v Gain City Engineering & Consultancy Pte Ltd (Ng Peng Boon, third party) (AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, intervener) [2020] 3 SLR 271 (“Ng Lay Peng”), the claimant was awarded $12,000…" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 67
"The other was Ong Tean Hoe v Hong Keng Industrial Company Private Limited [2001] SGHC 303 (“Ong Tean Hoe”) where the plaintiff was awarded $20,000…" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 68
After considering the evidence and the comparators, the court awarded Mdm Yew $286,000 for pain and suffering. That figure reflected the seriousness of her overall injury burden, including the psychiatric component and the physical consequences of the accident. The award appears in the final table of damages and represents the court’s global assessment of her non-pecuniary loss. (Para 159)
"In respect of Mdm Yew, the following items in JOS Annex B are awarded: … 1–10 Pain and suffering $286,000.00 …" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 159
How Did the Court Quantify Mdm Yew’s Orthopaedic and Chest Injuries?
The court dealt with Mdm Yew’s orthopaedic injuries by comparing them with a range of precedents. For knee-related injury, the court referred to Ley Hock Guan v Low Tong Seng and Ang Lian Lock v Mohd Shafar bin Salih and Anor. For more severe leg fracture injuries, it referred to Goh Eng Hong and Lai Sin Wah. These authorities helped the court calibrate the award for the physical injuries in a way that reflected both severity and residual impact. (Paras 75, 77)
"Ley Hock Guan v Low Tong Seng (DC Suit No. 2111 of 2000) where the claimant was awarded $15,000 for fracture of the left tibia…" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 75
"Ang Lian Lock v Mohd Shafar bin Salih and Anor (HC Suit No. 711 of 2012) where $25,000 was awarded." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 75
"Goh Eng Hong v Management Corporation of Textile Centre and another [2003] 1 SLR(R) 209 (“Goh Eng Hong”), where the High Court awarded the plaintiff damages of $40,000…" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 77
"Lai Sin Wah v Ng Soo Ngoh digested at [1999] Mallal’s Digest (4th ed) 1224 (“Lai Sin Wah”), where the plaintiff was awarded $25,000…" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 77
The court also considered chest and pneumothorax-related injuries. Counsel for the plaintiffs referred to Zhang Limin v Wan Ee Teck, where damages of $14,000 were agreed for left pneumothorax, and to Wang Qinfu v Tiong Woon Crane Pte Ltd, where a global sum of $30,000 was awarded for multiple rib fractures and left pneumothorax. The defendant, in turn, relied on Tew Chee Yong v Yap Eng Kiat to suggest a lower range. The court weighed these authorities in determining a fair award for the chest-related component of Mdm Yew’s injuries. (Paras 87-89)
"Counsel for the plaintiffs referred to Zhang Limin v Wan Ee Teck (DC Suit No. 1388 of 2009) where the parties agreed on damages of $14,000 for left pneumothorax." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 87
"He also referred to Wang Qinfu v Tiong Woon Crane Pte Ltd (HC Suit No. 732 of 2009) (“Wang Qinfu”) where the claimant was awarded $30,000 as a global sum for the multiple ribs fracture and left pneumothorax." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 87
"in Tew Chee Yong v Yap Eng Kiat (DC Suit No. 3977 of 1999) cited by the defendant, in addition to the $3,000 awarded for pneumothorax, the claimant was awarded $15,000 for multiple ribs fracture." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 89
These comparisons were not used mechanically. Rather, they served as guideposts in a broader evaluative exercise that took account of the totality of Mdm Yew’s injuries. The court’s final award for pain and suffering was therefore a composite figure reflecting the cumulative effect of the accident on her body and mind. (Paras 87-89, 159)
What Did the Court Decide on Mdm Yew’s Future Medical and Care Expenses?
The court accepted that Mdm Yew would require future medical intervention, including complex total knee arthroplasty. It fixed the future medical expense for that procedure at $35,000. The court also addressed other future care and medical needs, and its overall approach was to award sums that reflected the likely future burden arising from the accident-related injuries. (Para 126)
"I would therefore allow damages for the future medical expense of complex total knee arthroplasty fixed at $35,000…" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 126
The court’s treatment of future expenses was consistent with its general methodology throughout the judgment. It did not require mathematical certainty; instead, it assessed the evidence and fixed a figure that it considered fair and supportable. That approach is particularly important in cases involving long-term medical consequences, where the plaintiff’s future needs may be real but not susceptible to exact calculation. (Paras 44, 126)
In the final award table, the court included substantial sums for Mdm Yew’s future losses, including loss of future earnings and future medical-related items. The judgment therefore demonstrates how a court can combine medical evidence, practical prognosis, and fairness-based valuation to compensate a seriously injured plaintiff. (Para 159)
"In respect of Mdm Yew, the following items in JOS Annex B are awarded: … 27 Loss of future earnings $135,648.00 …" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 159
How Did the Court Deal with Proof, Special Damages, and the Evidential Burden?
A recurring theme in the judgment was the standard of proof for special damages and the practical difficulties faced by injured plaintiffs. The court referred to Yap Boon Fong Yvonne v Wong Kok Mun Alvin and another and another appeal, where the Court of Appeal explained that the law should not be unduly strict in exceptional circumstances that make precise proof difficult. The court also referred to Rahman Lutfar v Scanpile Constructors Pte Ltd and to the requirement that special damages be specially pleaded and proved. (Paras 21-22)
"We do not think that an adherence to established principles will make it unduly onerous for plaintiffs who find themselves in exceptional circumstances which make it difficult to precisely prove and quantify loss of earnings." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 21
"Accordingly, we are not concerned that the law will be too strict by compensating plaintiffs only for their pre-trial loss of earnings (and as a matter for special damages) and not diminished earning capacity." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 22
The court used those principles to justify a pragmatic approach to quantification. It accepted that the plaintiffs’ circumstances, especially after a serious accident, could make exact proof impossible or unrealistic. That did not relieve them of the burden of proof, but it did mean that the court could draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and make fair allowances. (Paras 21-23, 44-47)
This is why the court was willing to use bank statements, occupational wage tables, and actuarial tables rather than insisting on a perfect documentary trail. The judgment shows a court balancing evidential discipline with practical justice, particularly in the context of personal injury litigation where the plaintiff’s life and work may have been disrupted in ways that are hard to document precisely. (Paras 14, 23, 29, 44-47)
What Was the Final Outcome and What Orders Did the Court Make?
The court’s final orders were set out in the concluding tables for each plaintiff. For Mr Wee, the court awarded damages for pain and suffering, pre-trial loss of earnings, agreed medical expenses, and loss of future earnings. For Mdm Yew, the court awarded damages for pain and suffering, pre-trial loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, and other heads of loss reflected in the judgment’s final table. (Paras 158-159)
"In respect of Mr Wee, the following items in JOS Annex A are awarded: … 2–3 Pain and suffering $23,000.00 … 7 Pre-trial loss of earnings $58,500.00 … 4–6 Agreed medical expenses $1,324.74 … 8 Loss of future earnings $65,426.40" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 158
"In respect of Mdm Yew, the following items in JOS Annex B are awarded: … 1–10 Pain and suffering $286,000.00 … 26 Pre-trial loss of earnings $83,880.00 … 27 Loss of future earnings $135,648.00 …" — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 159
The court also dealt with interest and costs. It reserved the question of costs and stated that it would hear the parties on that issue. The judgment therefore concluded the assessment of damages but left the ancillary question of costs to be addressed separately. (Paras 160-164)
"I will hear parties on costs." — Per Andrew Ang SJ, Para 164
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters because it is a detailed illustration of how the High Court assesses personal injury damages when liability has already been established and the only task is to quantify loss. The judgment is especially useful for practitioners because it shows how the court handles incomplete proof, overlapping injuries, and the need to translate medical and vocational evidence into monetary awards. (Paras 3, 23, 44, 158-159)
It is also significant for its treatment of pre-trial loss of earnings. The court accepted that a plaintiff may be unable to prove exact earnings with precision where the accident has disrupted work in a practical sense, and it endorsed a fair, evidence-based approximation rather than an unrealistically exacting standard. That approach will be of continuing relevance in cases where self-employment, family businesses, or informal income streams make documentary proof difficult. (Paras 17-18, 21-23, 44-47)
Finally, the case is valuable as a comparative damages reference. The court canvassed a wide range of authorities on shoulder injuries, psychiatric injury, knee injuries, pneumothorax, rib fractures, and amputation-related trauma. Practitioners can use the judgment as a roadmap for how the High Court weighs comparators and how it avoids treating any single precedent as determinative. (Paras 9, 67-68, 75, 77, 87-89, 100, 113)
Cases Referred To
| Case Name | Citation | How Used | Key Proposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ting Heng Mee v Sin Shing Fresh Fruit Pte Ltd | [2004] SGHC 43 | Comparator for left shoulder tendon injury quantum | Partial tear of supraspinatus tendon with biceps tendinopathy attracted $13,500; pain had resolved by review. (Para 9) |
| Yap Boon Fong Yvonne v Wong Kok Mun Alvin and another and another appeal | [2019] I SLR 230 | Principle on proof of loss of earnings and special damages | Courts need not rigidly demand the same evidence in every claim; special damages need only be specially pleaded and proved. (Paras 21-22) |
| Zaiton Bee Bee bte Abdul Majeed v Chan Poh Teong | [2010] 3 SLR 697 | Illustration of quantifying pre-trial loss of earnings | Court accepted a fair mid-figure where exact proof was difficult. (Para 21) |
| Wee Sia Tian | Not fully cited in the extraction | Discussion of strict proof of special damages | Special damages must be strictly proved. (Para 21) |
| Rahman Lutfar v Scanpile Constructors Pte Ltd | [2016] SGHC 41 | Burden of proof for special damages | Special damages need only be specially pleaded and proved; not a higher burden than balance of probabilities. (Para 22) |
| Law Kin Ying (administratrix of the estate of Lo Hon Man) and others v Lim Hong Hock | [2015] SGHCR 14 | Rejected comparator for psychiatric injury | Bore no factual resemblance to Mdm Yew’s depression claim. (Para 66) |
| Ng Lay Peng v Gain City Engineering & Consultancy Pte Ltd (Ng Peng Boon, third party) (AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, intervener) | [2020] 3 SLR 271 | Comparator for psychiatric injury quantum | Awarded $12,000 for major depressive disorder after a low-speed collision. (Para 67) |
| Ong Tean Hoe v Hong Keng Industrial Company Private Limited | [2001] SGHC 303 | Comparator for psychiatric injury quantum | Awarded $20,000 for post-traumatic depression after amputation of both hands. (Para 68) |
| Ley Hock Guan v Low Tong Seng | DC Suit No. 2111 of 2000 | Comparator for knee injury quantum | Awarded $15,000 for fracture of the left tibia. (Para 75) |
| Ang Lian Lock v Mohd Shafar bin Salih and Anor | HC Suit No. 711 of 2012 | Comparator for knee injury quantum | Awarded $25,000. (Para 75) |
| Goh Eng Hong v Management Corporation of Textile Centre and another | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 209 | Comparator for severe leg fracture injuries | Awarded $40,000 for open compound fracture and ankle fracture with bone grafting. (Para 77) |
| Lai Sin Wah v Ng Soo Ngoh | Digested at [1999] Mallal’s Digest (4th ed) 1224 | Comparator for severe leg fracture injuries | Awarded $25,000 for comminuted fractures with infection, malunion, shortening, and chronic pain. (Para 77) |
| Zhang Limin v Wan Ee Teck | DC Suit No. 1388 of 2009 | Comparator for pneumothorax quantum | Parties agreed on $14,000 for left pneumothorax. (Para 87) |
| Wang Qinfu v Tiong Woon Crane Pte Ltd | HC Suit No. 732 of 2009 | Comparator for pneumothorax and rib fracture injuries | Awarded $30,000 as a global sum for multiple ribs fracture and left pneumothorax. (Para 87) |
| Tew Chee Yong v Yap Eng Kiat | DC Suit No. 3977 of 1999 | Comparator cited by defendant for pneumothorax range | In addition to $3,000 for pneumothorax, claimant was awarded $15,000 for multiple ribs fracture. (Para 89) |
| Tan Hun Boon v Rui Feng Travel Pte Ltd and Anor | [2008] 3 SLR 244 | Starting point for above-knee amputation with phantom limb pain | Appropriate award for left lower limb injury ranged from $100,000 to $115,000. (Para 100) |
| Apuada Marilyn Rondolo v Shaik Moktar bin Mohamad Aki & Anor | DC Suit No. 124 of 2010 | Comparator for tachycardia and multiple injuries | Awarded $42,000 for multiple chest and rib injuries including post-traumatic tachycardia. (Para 113) |
Legislation Referenced
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 102 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.