RAJINA SHARMA D/O RAJANDRAN v THEYVASIGAMANI S/O PERIASAMY & Anor

[2024] SGHC 42 High Court (General Division) 13 February 2024 • HC/S 994/2019 • 152 min read
29 cases cited (18 SG, 11 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Claim allowed

I therefore allow the claim for nappy rash cream.

Source: [2024] SGHC 42, High Court (General Division), decided 13 February 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court High Court (General Division)
Decided
Judge Teh Hwee Hwee
Charges / claim Damages
Outcome Claim allowed
Counsel DL Law Corporation, Securus Legal LLC, Titanium Law Chambers LLC, Willy Tay's Chambers, Christine Chiam, Koh Keh Jang Fendrick, Lalwani Anil Mangan, Nachiappan Shanmugam Ganesan, Shahira Binte Mohd Anuar, Tay Boon Chong Willy, Teo Weng Kie, Wee Anthony

Source: [2024] SGHC 42, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (12)

Parties (4)

Case Significance

Rajina Sharma d/o Rajandran (suing by her litigation representative Theyvasigamani s/o Periasamy) v Theyvasigamani s/o Periasamy and another (Song Teck Chong, third party) [2024] SGHC 42 was decided by Teh Hwee Hwee J in the General Division of the High Court on 13 February 2024, in Suit No 994 of 2019. The proceedings concerned the assessment of damages suffered by the plaintiff in a road traffic accident. The defendants were Theyvasigamani s/o Periasamy and Jasmani bin Jaffar, with Song Teck Chong as third party.

The catchwords frame the issues as the measure of damages in personal injuries cases, including the appropriate multiplier and multiplicand; pre-trial expenses and pre-trial loss of earnings, including the pre-trial loss of earnings of the plaintiff's caregiver; general damages for pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, loss of retirement benefits and future losses and expenses; and the application of paragraph 159 of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 and the "Actuarial Tables with Explanatory Notes for use in Personal Injury and Death Claims", with adjustment for other vicissitudes. A notable question identified was whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the pre-trial loss of earnings of her caregiver, who was also the tortfeasor. The plaintiff was represented by DL Law Corporation; the defendants by Securus Legal LLC and Willy Tay's Chambers; and the third party by Titanium Law Chambers LLC.

Summary

These proceedings before the General Division of the High Court concerned the assessment of damages for a plaintiff who was injured as a pillion passenger in a road traffic accident in November 2016 while working as a Senior Staff Sergeant in the Singapore Police Force. The case raised questions on the measure of damages in personal injury cases, including the appropriate multiplier and multiplicand, whether an additional discount should be applied to awards calculated using the Singapore Actuarial Tables for other vicissitudes of life, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to pre-trial loss of earnings of her caregiver who was also the tortfeasor. The court awarded the plaintiff total damages of $3,378,231.99, comprising items including pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, loss of retirement benefits, and various pre-trial and future expenses, and indicated it would hear the parties on interest and costs.

What was Rajina Sharma d/o Rajandran v Theyvasigamani s/o Periasamy [2024] SGHC 42 about?

Decided by Teh Hwee Hwee J on 13 February 2024, the case concerned the assessment of damages suffered by the plaintiff in a road traffic accident, covering multiplier and multiplicand, pre-trial losses, general damages, and use of actuarial tables under the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013.

What unusual damages question arose in [2024] SGHC 42?

A notable question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the pre-trial loss of earnings of her caregiver, who was also the tortfeasor. The judgment also addressed the application of paragraph 159 of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 and actuarial tables.

Cases Cited (29)

SG (7)
[1995] SGHC 43 [2004] SGHC 147 [2004] SGHC 27 [2004] SGHC 43 [2008] SGHC 33 [2014] SGHCR 21 [2019] SGDC 185
SLR (11)
[1993] 1 SLR(R) 407 [1998] 2 SLR(R) 801 [2012] 2 SLR 85 [2012] 3 SLR 1003 [2012] 3 SLR 496 [2014] 3 SLR 702 [2016] 1 SLR 217 [2017] 2 SLR 229 [2019] 1 SLR 145 [2021] 5 SLR 1111 [2022] 4 SLR 1045
UK (6)
[1970] AC 1 [1974] QB 454 [1978] 1 QB 543 [1988] AC 514 [1993] 3 WLR 558 [1994] 2 AC 350
AU (4)
[2004] NSWCA 413 [2009] NSWCA 353 [2012] NSWCA 293 [2018] NSWCA 146
HK (1)
[2013] 2 HKC 182

Cited By (1)

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 42)