Poh Huat Heng v Hafizul Islam: Industrial Accident, Paraplegia, Damages Assessment

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd, Hua Liong Machinery & Trading Pte Ltd, and Viscas Engineering Singapore Pte Ltd against the High Court's decision regarding the assessment of damages awarded to Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin, a Bangladeshi national, for injuries sustained in an industrial accident. The accident resulted in paraplegia. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the assistant registrar's award concerning pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of future earnings, future medical expenses, and future transport and care expenses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed with Costs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages for paraplegia sustained in an industrial accident. The court upheld the assistant registrar's award, addressing issues of future earnings and medical expenses.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Hua Liong Machinery & Trading Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Viscas Engineering Singapore Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinRespondentIndividualJudgment UpheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eu Hai MengUnited Legal Alliance LLC
Cheah Saing ChongYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation
Mohamed MohideenYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Respondent, a Bangladeshi national, was injured in an industrial accident on 21 August 2008.
  2. The Respondent was laying cables at a Mass Rapid Transit worksite when a bag of cement fell on his back.
  3. The accident resulted in the Respondent suffering a spinal injury, leading to paraplegia.
  4. The Respondent now suffers from paralysis of his lower limbs and is permanently wheelchair-bound.
  5. The Respondent has no sensation below the groin and lacks control over his bowels and bladder.
  6. The Respondent suffers from erectile dysfunction and infertility as a result of the accident.
  7. The Appellants consented to an interlocutory judgment with liability apportioned at 90% against them.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin, Civil Appeal No 28 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 31

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Industrial accident occurred
Respondent returned to Bangladesh
Action commenced against the Appellants
Interlocutory judgment issued
Respondent enrolled in nursing home in Dhaka
Assessment hearing began
Assessment hearing continued
Assessment hearing concluded
Proceedings before the Judge
Oral arguments for the appeal heard
Summons filed for cross-appeal out of time
Summons heard and dismissed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court upheld the assistant registrar's assessment of damages, finding no error in the approach or the quantum awarded.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appropriate multiplier for loss of future earnings
      • Valuation of future medical expenses
      • Assessment of pain and suffering
      • Loss of amenities
  2. Loss of Future Earnings
    • Outcome: The court upheld the assistant registrar's award for loss of future earnings, finding the multiplier and multiplicand appropriate.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Determination of multiplicand
      • Appropriate multiplier
      • Discount for accelerated receipt
      • Impact of foreign worker status
  3. Future Medical Expenses
    • Outcome: The court upheld the assistant registrar's award for future medical expenses, finding the evidence and calculations appropriate.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Admissibility of medical evidence
      • Applicability of Singapore vs. Bangladeshi medical costs
      • Discount for contingencies
  4. Pain and Suffering
    • Outcome: The court upheld the assistant registrar's award for pain and suffering, finding it within the appropriate range for the severity of the injuries.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Global vs. component approach
      • Severity of injuries
      • Comparability with other cases
  5. Loss of Amenities
    • Outcome: The court upheld the assistant registrar's award for loss of amenities, including loss of marriage prospects.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Loss of marriage prospects
      • Impact of injuries on quality of life

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Special Damages
  2. General Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Employer's Liability

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chang Ah Lek and others v Lim Ah KoonCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 551SingaporeCited for the principle that a High Court judge hearing an appeal against an assistant registrar's decision on an assessment of damages is entitled to vary the assistant registrar's award as he deems fair and just.
Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai KuenCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1068SingaporeCited to support the principle that a High Court judge hearing an appeal against an assistant registrar's award of damages deals with the appeal as though the matter came before him for the first time.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu LengCourt of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the principle that the High Court judge was entitled to enhance the assistant registrar’s award for pre-trial loss of earnings.
Thong Ah Fat v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 676SingaporeCited regarding the judicial duty to give reasons.
Loh Sioh Hon (administratrix of the estate of Chiam Heok Yong, deceased) v Loh Siok MoeyCourt of AppealYes[2012] SGCA 14SingaporeCited regarding the judicial duty to give reasons.
Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Drew & Napier and anotherHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 252SingaporeCited for the principle that a consent judgment or consent order is binding and cannot be set aside save for exceptional reasons.
Bakery Mart Pte Ltd v Ng Wei Teck Michael and othersHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 28SingaporeCited for the principle that a consent judgment or consent order is binding and cannot be set aside save for exceptional reasons.
Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac LtdCourt of AppealYes[1982] 1 WLR 185England and WalesCited to distinguish between a real agreement and a party merely not objecting to a course of action.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu ManHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 117SingaporeCited to distinguish between a real agreement and a party merely not objecting to a course of action.
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)Court of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 610SingaporeCited for the two approaches to assessing damages for pain and suffering: global and component.
Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda GillianCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 587SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the component approach was adopted in assessing damages for head injuries.
Ng Song Leng v Soh Kim Seng Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd & AnorHigh CourtYes[1997] SGHC 289SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a global award of $160,000 was made for injuries resulting in tetraplegia and bowel dysfunction.
Cheng Chay Choo v Wong Meng Tuck & AnorHigh CourtYes[1992] SGHC 133SingaporeCited as an example of a case where $120,000 was awarded for injuries resulting in paraplegia.
Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd & OrsHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 134SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a global award of $130,000 was made for injuries resulting in lower limb paralysis and loss of sexual function.
Koh Soon Pheng v Tan Kah EngHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR 538SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the award of $108,000 was not varied for serious injuries.
Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1983–1984] SLR(R) 388SingaporeCited for the principle that the starting point for determining the appropriate multiplier must be the likely duration, after the trial, for which the plaintiff would have been expected to earn an income but for the accident.
Wells v Wells and other appealsHouse of LordsYes[1999] 1 AC 345United KingdomCited for the underlying objective in fixing the multiplier is to derive a final award that provides the plaintiff with full compensation to the nearest extent possible.
Lai Wee Lian Revisited – Should actuarial tables be used for the assessment of damages in personal injury litigation in Singapore?Singapore Journal of Legal StudiesYes[2000] SJLS 364SingaporeCited for a summary of possible approaches to determine the appropriate multiplier.
Loh Chia Mei v Koh Kok HanHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 181SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the multiplier was fixed by looking at the multipliers used in comparable cases.
Chan Pui-ki v Leung On and AnotherHong Kong Court of AppealYes[1996] 2 HKLR 401Hong KongCited as an example of a case where the multiplier was fixed by looking at the multipliers used in comparable cases.
Shaw Linda Gillian v Chai Kang Wei SamuelHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 187SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a pure arithmetical discount was applied.
Ibrahim bin Ismail & Anor v Hasnah bte Puteh Imat (as beneficiary and legal mother of Bakri bin Yahya and substituting Yahaya bin Ibrahim) & Anor and another appealMalaysian CourtsYes[2004] 1 MLJ 525MalaysiaCited for the statutory formula is mandatory due to the imperative language of the statute.
Heil v RankinCourtYes[2001] PIQR Q3England and WalesCited for the court applied a discount to account for the fact that the plaintiff police officer might not have remained in the police force until the normal retirement age of 50.
M (A Child) v Leeds Health AuthorityCourtYes[2002] PIQR Q4England and WalesCited for a 22.5% discount was applied to account, inter alia, for the prospect that the plaintiff, a young girl, might have had to take time off to raise a family.
Ingrid van Wees v Z Karkour and A WalshCourtYes[2007] EWHC 165England and WalesCited for the court took into account the fact that the plaintiff, being a woman, was “at present” [emphasis added] less likely to earn the same amount as a man, but that her salary was likely to become equal in the future because the prevailing trends suggested that the gap between the salaries of male employees and those of female employees was narrowing.
J A Andrews, Dorothy Andrews, Ivan Stefanyk v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd and Robert G AndersonSupreme Court of CanadaYes[1978] 2 SCR 229CanadaCited for the Canadian approach to assessing loss of future earnings is similar to the multiplier/multiplicand method, except that the discount is not applied to the multiplier.
Todorovic and another v WallerHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1981) 150 CLR 402AustraliaCited for the High Court of Australia has stipulated that in States where a discount rate is not fixed by statute, a fixed rate of 3% should be used.
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial CorporationHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1995) 184 CLR 485AustraliaCited for the possibility of a depression in the economy, “changes in industrial emphasis” and industrial disputes.
Tan Woei Jinn v Thapjang Amorthap and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 553SingaporeCited for the principle that foreign workers may not spend their entire working lives in Singapore, and any award for lost future earnings should take this into account.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)High CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 1129SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must evaluate the expert’s evidence in the light of the objective facts and by reference to the usual criteria for assessing evidence.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983SingaporeCited for the principle that a court must not unquestioningly accept unchallenged evidence.
Ho Soo Fong and another v Standard Chartered BankCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 181SingaporeCited for “the general tort principle that the tortfeasor must take his victim as he is”.
Teo Seng Kiat v Goh Hwa TeckHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 333SingaporeCited as a comparable case where a multiplier of 18 years was applied in respect of the plaintiff, who was injured at the age of 28.
Teo Sing Keng and another v Sim Ban KiatHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 340SingaporeCited as a comparable case where a multiplier of 15 years was applied in respect of the plaintiff, who was injured at the age of 25 and, as a result, permanently disabled.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited as a comparable case where this court used a multiplier of 17 years for the future medical expenses to be awarded to a plaintiff who was 27 years old at the time of her injury.
Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee AhCourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 361SingaporeCited for the multiplier for future transport and care expenses is based on the plaintiff’s life expectancy.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67) (M’sia)Malaysia
Damages Act 1996 (c 48) (UK)United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Paraplegia
  • Industrial accident
  • Assessment of damages
  • Loss of future earnings
  • Future medical expenses
  • Multiplier
  • Multiplicand
  • Pain and suffering
  • Loss of amenities
  • Interlocutory judgment
  • Apportionment of liability

15.2 Keywords

  • Industrial accident
  • Paraplegia
  • Damages assessment
  • Loss of earnings
  • Medical expenses
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Work Injury Compensation95
Industrial Accident80
Assessment of Damages75
Personal Injury70
Damages60
Causation30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Personal Injury
  • Damages
  • Civil Procedure