CRAPPER IAN ANTHONY v SALMIZAN BIN ABDULLAH

[2024] SGCA 21 Court of Appeal 28 June 2024 • CA/CA 31/2023 • 41 min read
25 cases cited (20 SG, 5 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Damages — Assessment Tort — Negligence — Damages Tort — Negligence — Causation Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders

Practice Areas

Damages Tort Civil Procedure

Judges (3)

Debbie Ong Siew Ling Coram Steven Chong Delivered Sundaresh Menon Coram

Counsel (9)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Ling & Ling LLC Firm Tan Chin Hoe & Co Firm Beverley Yap Qian Ning Counsel Appellant Cavinder Bull Counsel Independent Counsel Ling Leong Hui Counsel Respondent Ling Tek En Gerald Counsel Respondent Siew Jey Ren Counsel Appellant Tan Seng Chew Richard Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Crapper Ian Anthony Appellant Salmizan bin Abdullah Respondent

Case Significance

Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah [2024] SGCA 21 was decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 28 June 2024, with Steven Chong JCA delivering the grounds of decision of the court, sitting with Sundaresh Menon CJ and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD (Civil Appeal No 31 of 2023, heard 9 May 2024). The matter began as a relatively modest personal injury claim commenced before the Magistrate's Court. The appellant and respondent had agreed to enter a consent interlocutory judgment at 90 per cent in favour of the respondent, while "leaving the issues of damages and causation to be assessed", because the appellant disputed the causal connection between the accident and the respondent's injuries.

The court recorded that during the assessment of damages hearing, a Deputy Registrar of the State Courts, drawing on the court's earlier decision in Tan Woo Thian v PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Pte Ltd [2021] 1 SLR 1166, raised concerns over whether the parties could lawfully enter interlocutory judgment with an express reservation as to causation of the claim for general damages. In light of those concerns, the appellant applied to transfer the case to the General Division of the High Court to seek a pronouncement. The case engaged the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the State Courts Act. Counsel included Tan Chin Hoe & Co for the appellant, Ling & Ling LLC for the respondent, and Cavinder Bull of Drew & Napier LLC as independent counsel.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
28 June 2024
Case summary
Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah [2024] SGCA 21

Civil Appeal No 31 of 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Court of Appeal:
Outcome: The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a decision of the General Division of the High Court. The Court of Appeal held that parties in a negligence claim for personal injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents (“PIMA”) can reserve causation in toto to the subsequent stage of the proceedings (ie, the “AD Stage”).
Pertinent and significant points of the judgment
•  Parties in a PIMA claim are not precluded from entering into an interlocutory judgment by consent without admitting causation.
•  Bifurcation can be ordered in PIMA cases when causation is reserved and where liability has not been determined at the first stage of the proceedings.
Background to the appeal and the material facts
1 The appellant was driving a motorcycle when it collided with the respondent’s motor car. The respondent allegedly suffered injuries due to the accident and filed a claim at the Magistrate’s Court against the appellant for general damages and special damages. The appellant resisted the respondent’s claim on the basis of, amongst other grounds, the lack of causation for his injuries.
2 Parties expressly indicated that by consent, interlocutory judgment was entered for the respondent against the appellant at 90 per cent leaving the issue of damages and causation to be assessed.
3 During the assessment of damages hearing, a Deputy Registrar of the State Courts, on his understanding of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tan Woo Thian v PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Pte Ltd [2021] 1 SLR 1166 (“Tan Woo Thian”) expressed concerns as to whether it was legally permissible for the parties to enter interlocutory judgment with express reservation as regards causation of the respondent’s claim for general damages.
4 The matter was subsequently transferred to the General Division of the High Court to settle the extent to which causation can be contested at the AD Stage after entering interlocutory judgment against a defendant. The General Division of the High Court in Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper Ian Anthony [2023] SGHC 75 held that parties cannot challenge causation to any extent at the AD Stage.
The decision on appeal
5 Two issues were dispositive of the appeal, which were: (a) whether parties in a PIMA claim are precluded from entering into an interlocutory judgment by consent without admitting causation; and (b) whether bifurcation can and should be ordered when causation is reserved: at [32].
6 The Court of Appeal held that liability does not need to be fully established before a consent interlocutory judgment can be entered in the context of PIMA cases. Neither “interlocutory” nor “judgment” bears any implication relating to the specific issue of liability. Instead, an interlocutory judgment is an intermediate judgment that determines a preliminary or subordinate point but does not finally decide the case. In a consent interlocutory judgment, it is for the parties to agree on what had been resolved with res judicata effect and what had not: at [46]–[48].
7 In determining what an “interlocutory judgment” means, what is crucial is the context in which that particular interlocutory judgment has been entered and the terms of that interlocutory judgment: at [50].
8 It is important to ensure accuracy, precision, and clarity in drafting such a consent interlocutory judgment. A clear distinction should be drawn between an interlocutory judgment on issues and an interlocutory judgment on liability. Where it is the latter, then it would, by definition, mean that such an interlocutory judgment would have established liability fully reserving only issues relating to the assessment of damages; where it is the former, then it is important to expressly define the particular issues that the interlocutory judgment had resolved: at [51].
9 The Court of Appeal also held that bifurcation can be ordered when causation is reserved. As a matter of case management, there is nothing in principle or policy requiring bifurcation to be strictly between liability and quantum or damages. Bifurcation is, at its core, driven by considerations of promoting expeditious proceedings, cost-effectiveness and ensuring the efficient use of court resources. Further, as a matter of precedent, proceedings have not always been bifurcated on the basis of liability and quantum or damages: at [57] and [58].
10 As for whether the court should bifurcate between liability and quantum or damages or in some other way, this would depend very much on the context of the case: at [59].
11 The Court of Appeal also made a few observations on Ngiam Kong Seng and another v Lim Chiew Hock [2008] 3 SLR(R) 674 (“Ngiam Kong Seng (CA)”) and Tan Woo Thian. The observations made in Ngiam Kong Seng (CA) about the requisite elements to complete a cause of action in the tort of negligence were made in obiter, and was also not fully addressed by the parties. It was also unlikely that the court in Ngiam Kong Seng (CA) intended to make a definitive pronouncement on whether causation went towards liability. Finally, any uncertainty is now resolved by the express pronouncement in Tan Woo Thian reiterating that causation and damage are necessary elements to establish liability in the tort of negligence: at [62] and [63].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

What did Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah [2024] SGCA 21 decide?

In this 28 June 2024 Court of Appeal decision, Steven Chong JCA delivered grounds addressing whether parties could enter an interlocutory judgment reserving causation. The dispute arose from a personal injury claim where consent judgment was entered at 90 per cent with damages and causation left to be assessed.

Why did the assessment of damages hearing in Crapper v Salmizan raise a legal question?

A Deputy Registrar of the State Courts, drawing on Tan Woo Thian v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2021] 1 SLR 1166, questioned whether parties could enter interlocutory judgment with an express reservation as to causation of general damages. The appellant then applied to transfer the case to the General Division.

Who were the judges in Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah?

The Court of Appeal panel comprised Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD, with Steven Chong JCA delivering the grounds of decision of the court. The matter was Civil Appeal No 31 of 2023, heard on 9 May 2024 and decided 28 June 2024.

Statutes Cited

In determining if an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed was a final order under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) Cases on this Act →
State Courts Act (Cap 321) Cases on this Act →
s 54B(1)
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (25)

SG (7)
[2005] SGDC 56 [2007] SGHC 38 [2016] SGHCF 10 [2022] SGHC 188 [2023] SGHC 100 [2023] SGHC 75 [2024] SGCDT 1
SLR (13)
[1995] 3 SLR(R) 653 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 300 [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 674 [2010] 2 SLR 1 [2016] 4 SLR 1 [2017] 4 SLR 728 [2017] 5 SLR 77 [2019] 4 SLR 1075 [2021] 1 SLR 1166 [2021] 2 SLR 1013 [2021] 2 SLR 816 [2023] 4 SLR 1
UK (5)
[1965] 1 QB 232 [1966] 1 QB 630 [2001] EWCA Civ 307 [2005] 1 WLR 3204 [2020] 3 WLR 1369

Cited By (1)

[2024] SGHC 212
CHOO YEW LIANG SEBASTIAN v KOH YEW TECK

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

State Courts Act Supreme Court of Judicature Act

Legal concepts & references

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders Damages — Assessment Tort — Negligence

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGCA 21)