Crapper v Salmizan: Interlocutory Judgments, Causation, and Negligence in Personal Injury Claims

In Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether parties in a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident can enter into an interlocutory judgment by consent without admitting causation. The court allowed the appeal, holding that parties can agree to reserve the issue of causation for later determination, emphasizing that the terms of a consent interlocutory judgment dictate which issues are resolved and which remain open. The court clarified that bifurcation can be ordered when causation is reserved, as it is a consequence of the parties' agreement in the consent interlocutory judgment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the permissibility of reserving causation in interlocutory judgments for personal injury claims, emphasizing party autonomy.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Crapper Ian AnthonyAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Salmizan bin AbdullahRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Debbie Ong Siew LingJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Seng Chew RichardTan Chin Hoe & Co
Siew Jey RenTan Chin Hoe & Co
Beverley Yap Qian NingTan Chin Hoe & Co
Ling Leong HuiLing & Ling LLC
Ling Tek En GeraldLing & Ling LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant's motorcycle collided with the respondent’s motor car on 29 March 2019.
  2. The respondent claimed neck and back pain as a result of the accident.
  3. The appellant resisted the claim, disputing causation of the respondent's injuries.
  4. Parties entered a consent interlocutory judgment at 90 per cent in favor of the respondent, leaving damages and causation to be assessed.
  5. A technical specialist stated the damage profiles were inconsistent with the level of force required to cause the respondent's injuries.
  6. The Deputy Registrar expressed concerns about proceeding with the assessment of damages hearing in light of Tan Woo Thian.
  7. The appellant applied for the case to be transferred to the General Division to seek a pronouncement on preliminary questions of law.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah, Civil Appeal No 31 of 2023, [2024] SGCA 21

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant's motorcycle collided with the respondent’s motor car.
Parties indicated consent to interlocutory judgment at 90 per cent, leaving damages and causation to be assessed.
Consent interlocutory judgment was entered for the respondent against the appellant.
Single Joint Experts appointed.
Parties directed to consider the findings in Tan Woo Thian.
Parties directed to consider the findings in Tan Woo Thian.
Appellant stated that causation is disputed.
Parties willing to proceed with the assessment of damages hearing despite the dispute as to causation.
Appellant filed an application for the matter to be transferred to the General Division.
Application allowed by an Assistant Registrar.
Appellant filed a summons for preliminary questions of law to be determined.
Judgment was delivered.
Appellant filed an application for permission to appeal against the Judgment.
Appellate Division allowed the application.
Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal to the Appellate Division.
Appellant filed a further application for the appeal to be transferred to this court.
Application allowed by consent.
Mr Cavinder Bull SC was appointed as independent counsel.
Appeal hearing.
Appeal allowed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Causation
    • Outcome: The court held that parties can agree to reserve the issue of causation for later determination in a consent interlocutory judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 1166
      • [2023] SGHC 75
  2. Interlocutory Judgment
    • Outcome: The court clarified that an interlocutory judgment does not necessarily require full establishment of liability and can be entered by consent with reservation of certain issues.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 1166
      • [2023] SGHC 75
  3. Bifurcation
    • Outcome: The court held that bifurcation can be ordered when causation is reserved, as it is a consequence of the parties' agreement in the consent interlocutory judgment.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. General Damages
  2. Special Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Law
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Assessment of Damages

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Woo Thian v PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1166SingaporeExpressed 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.
Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper Ian AnthonyHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 75SingaporeThe High Court judge answered the questions in the negative, holding that causation cannot be reserved at all to the assessment of damages stage in personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents.
Ngiam Kong Seng and another v Lim Chiew HockCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 674SingaporeAppeared to support the Total Causation at Assessment of Damages Stage Approach even though it was not cited in Tan Woo Thian.
Strachan v The Gleaner Co Ltd and anotherPrivy CouncilYes[2005] 1 WLR 3204JamaicaCited for the principle that once judgment has been given for damages to be assessed, the defendant cannot dispute liability at the assessment hearing.
U Myo Nyunt (alias Michael Nyunt) v First Property Holdings Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 816SingaporeCited for the principle that after a judgment in default is entered with damages to be assessed, the defendant is not entitled to dispute liability at the assessment of damages stage.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu ManCourt of AppealYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 525SingaporeDiscussed whether an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed finally disposes of the rights of the parties.
Lim Chi Szu Margaret v Risis Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 300SingaporeConsidered whether an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed constituted an interlocutory order.
Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party)High CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 728SingaporeConsidered whether an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed was a final order.
Letang v CooperQueen's BenchYes[1965] 1 QB 232England and WalesCited for the definition of a cause of action.
Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O ExportchlebCourt of AppealYes[1966] 1 QB 630England and WalesCited for the definition of an interlocutory judgment as a judgment on any issue which is not decisive of the suit.
Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (formerly Inland Revenue Commissioners)UK Supreme CourtYes[2020] 3 WLR 1369United KingdomCited Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb with approval.
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co LtdHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1999) 161 ALR 399AustraliaCited Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb with approval.
PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd v Rex Lam PakiHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 188SingaporeCited for the definition of a judgment in common law.
Nim Minimaart (a firm) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079Court of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that an appeal does not generally lie against a consent interlocutory judgment save for exceptional circumstances.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1013SingaporeCited for the principle that a consent interlocutory judgment would ordinarily bind the parties unless fresh proceedings are commenced to set it aside.
JCQ v JCRCopyright Disputes Resolution TribunalYes[2024] SGCDT 1SingaporeCited for the principle that a consent interlocutory judgment is not premised on an adjudicated outcome, and there would be no decision of the court on the merits which would form the subject matter of an appeal.
TOC v TODSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2016] SGHCF 10SingaporeCited for the principle that a consent order is an order of court entered by agreement between the parties with the approval of the court.
The Resolution and Collection Corp v Tsuneji Kawabe and othersHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 100SingaporeCited for the principle that bifurcation is driven by considerations of promoting expeditious proceedings, cost-effectiveness and ensuring the efficient use of court resources.
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd & anor v PT Bayan Resources TBK & anorSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 1SingaporeRuled on certain issues relating to the scope and content of the parties’ contractual obligations in relation to the joint venture.
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd & anor v PT Bayan Resources TBK & anorSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 77SingaporeRuled on certain contractual obligations under the joint venture and alleged breaches of the parties’ contractual obligations under the joint venture.
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd & anor v PT Bayan Resources TBK & anorSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2023] 4 SLR 1SingaporeRuled on the issues of loss and damages.
Millenia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd) v Dragages Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Dragages et Travaux Publics (Singapore) Pte Ltd) and others (Arup Singapore Pte Ltd, third party)High CourtYes[2019] 4 SLR 1075SingaporeThe court ordered by consent that the trial be bifurcated between issues of liability and issues of quantum, save that one issue relating to quantum be nonetheless heard at the liability stage of the proceedings.
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 653SingaporeProceedings were bifurcated, and two preliminary issues of law were first raised.
Ngiam Kong Seng and another v CityCab Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 38SingaporeThe judge noted that liability was the only issue that had to be determined, but nevertheless held that even if the court had found the respondent liable on the first appellant’s claim, the court would nonetheless have dismissed the second appellant’s claim as “being too remote”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
State Courts Act 1970Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court 2021Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interlocutory Judgment
  • Causation
  • Assessment of Damages
  • Personal Injury Claim
  • Bifurcation
  • Consent Judgment
  • PIMA Claim
  • Negligence
  • Liability
  • Damages

15.2 Keywords

  • Interlocutory Judgment
  • Causation
  • Negligence
  • Personal Injury
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure
  • Damages
  • Bifurcation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence95
Causation90
Damages Assessment90
Civil Practice70
Personal Injury60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Tort Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents