Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng David: Principles Governing Review of Registrar's Decision on Damages Assessment

Tan Boon Heng appealed against the High Court's decision, which had affirmed the Assistant Registrar's assessment of damages in favor of Lau Pang Cheng David, following a road traffic accident. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, addressing the principles governing a High Court judge’s review of a Registrar’s decision in an assessment of damages, particularly concerning findings of fact based on oral and documentary evidence. The court clarified the standards of review applicable to Registrar's findings of fact based on oral evidence, affidavit or documentary evidence, and mixed evidence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000 to the respondent.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning the principles governing a High Court judge’s review of a Registrar’s decision in an assessment of damages. Appeal dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tan Boon HengAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lau Pang Cheng DavidRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualJudgment for RespondentWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of AppealNo
Quentin Loh Sze-OnJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramesh AppooJust Law LLC
Rajashree RajanJust Law LLC
Susila GanesanJust Law LLC
Goh Teck WeeGoh JP & Wong

4. Facts

  1. The respondent, a surgeon, was involved in a road traffic accident in 2006 while cycling.
  2. Liability was apportioned by consent, with the appellant shouldering 95% and the respondent 5%.
  3. An interlocutory judgment was given in the District Court in the respondent’s favour on 15 July 2010.
  4. The action was transferred to the High Court on 20 September 2011 because damages were expected to exceed the District Court's jurisdictional limit.
  5. The Assistant Registrar awarded the respondent damages amounting to $281,877.75 on 31 May 2012, excluding interest.
  6. The appellant appealed against the AR’s awards under four particular heads of relief.
  7. The Judge dismissed the appeal on 21 August 2012.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng David, Civil Appeal No 119 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 48
  2. Lau Pang Cheng David v Tan Boon Heng, , [2013] 1 SLR 783

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Road traffic accident occurred
Interlocutory judgment given in the District Court in the respondent’s favour
Action transferred to the High Court
Assessment of damages heard by the AR began
Assessment of damages heard by the AR ended
AR awarded the respondent damages
Judge dismissed the appeal
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Standard of Review for Registrar's Findings of Fact
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal clarified the standard of review applicable to a judge in chambers when reviewing a Registrar's decision, distinguishing between findings of fact based on oral evidence, affidavit or documentary evidence, and mixed evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deference to Registrar's findings based on oral evidence
      • Review of Registrar's findings based on documentary evidence
      • Review of Registrar's mixed findings of fact
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 1 SLR 783
      • [1983] 1 WLR 207
      • [1937] AC 473
      • [1936] 2 All ER 542
      • [2001] 3 SLR(R) 439
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 525
      • [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392
      • [2004] 2 SLR(R) 361
      • [1958] VR 601
      • [1966] P 52
      • [1998] 3 SLR(R) 551
      • [2003] 4 SLR(R) 442
      • [1990] 2 SLR(R) 685
      • [1967] 2 QB 841
      • [1942] AC 601
      • [2000] 1 WLR 1311
      • [2006] EWCA Civ 311
      • [2012] 3 SLR 1003
      • [1971] 1 WLR 123
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 825
      • [1930] P 246
      • [2011] 1 SLR 1235
      • [2003] 1 SLR(R) 333
      • [2008] 1 SLR(R) 178
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 1076
      • [2009] SGHC 138
      • [2010] 1 SLR 209
      • [2010] 2 SLR 1037
      • [2012] SGHC 91
      • [1977] 1 WLR 1376
      • [1992] 1 WLR 734
      • [1993] 1 WLR 744
      • [2002] 1 WLR 1441
      • [2012] 3 SLR 1038
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
      • [2013] 1 SLR 207
      • [1954] 1 WLR 1489
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133
      • [2013] SGHC 151
      • [2010] 2 SLR 1154

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
C M Van Stillevoldt BV v E L Carriers IncNot specifiedYes[1983] 1 WLR 207England and WalesCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal can interfere with the decision of a judge in chambers on appeal from the Registrar only on well-established principles of appellate intervention.
Evans v BartlamHouse of LordsYes[1937] AC 473United KingdomCited for the principle that in an appeal against the Registrar's decision, the judge is free to exercise a fresh discretion.
Cooper v CooperNot specifiedYes[1936] 2 All ER 542England and WalesCited for the principle that in an appeal against the Registrar's decision, the judge is free to exercise a fresh discretion.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu LengCourt of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal may vary the quantum of damages awarded by the judge only if the latter acted on wrong principles, misapprehended the facts, or made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages.
Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Soh Seow PohCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 525SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal can only intervene to overrule a judge's exercise of discretion where the judge was misguided with regard to the principles under which his discretion was to be exercised, took into account irrelevant matters or failed to take into account relevant matters, or the judge’s decision was plainly wrong.
Lau Pang Cheng David v Tan Boon HengHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 783SingaporeThe decision from which this appeal arose.
Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)High CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 392SingaporeCited for the principle that the Registrar is given powers, authority and jurisdiction for administrative convenience, in a bid to save the time of the judge.
Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee AhHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 361SingaporeCited for the principle that the Registrar is given powers, authority and jurisdiction for administrative convenience, in a bid to save the time of the judge.
Tidswell v Tidswell (No 2)Supreme Court of VictoriaYes[1958] VR 601AustraliaCited to show that the Registrar exercises delegated jurisdiction.
Sansom v SansomNot specifiedYes[1966] P 52England and WalesCited to show that the Registrar exercises delegated jurisdiction.
Chang Ah Lek and others v Lim Ah KoonCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 551SingaporeCited for the principle that where the Registrar’s decision is taken up to a judge in chambers, that is not an “appeal” in the true sense.
Teo Eng Chuan v Nirumalan V Kanapathi PillayHigh CourtYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 442SingaporeCited for the principle that where the Registrar’s decision is taken up to a judge in chambers, that is not an “appeal” in the true sense.
Herbs and Spices Trading Post Pte Ltd v Deo Silver (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 685SingaporeCited for the principle that a judge in chambers who hears a Registrar’s Appeal is not exercising an appellate jurisdiction but confirmatory jurisdiction instead.
Fielding v Variety IncorporatedNot specifiedYes[1967] 2 QB 841England and WalesCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal could only interfere with the master’s exercise of discretion if the damages had been assessed on a wholly erroneous basis.
Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries LtdHouse of LordsYes[1942] AC 601United KingdomCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal could only interfere with the master’s exercise of discretion if the damages had been assessed on a wholly erroneous basis.
Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald (Practice Note)Not specifiedYes[2000] 1 WLR 1311England and WalesCited for the principle that a judge may only interfere with an interim decision if it is wrong or is unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings.
Gorne v ScalesEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2006] EWCA Civ 311England and WalesCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal will only interfere with the master’s determination if the latter erred in law, or if his decision was against the weight of the evidence.
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinHigh CourtYes[2012] 3 SLR 1003SingaporeCited for the principle that the judge was to decide an appeal from the Registrar as though the matter came before him for the first time.
Blundell v RimmerNot specifiedYes[1971] 1 WLR 123England and WalesCited for the principle that arguments which were not raised before the Registrar below may properly be considered by the judge in chambers on appeal.
Tan Yu Min Winston (by his next friend Tan Cheng Tong) v Uni-Fruitveg Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 825SingaporeCited for the principle that every exercise of a judicial discretion is invariably grounded upon due ascertainment of the facts.
Apted v AptedNot specifiedYes[1930] P 246England and WalesCited for the principle that every exercise of a judicial discretion is invariably grounded upon due ascertainment of the facts.
ACU v ACRHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 1235SingaporeCited to show that the judge knows that he is entitled to exercise his discretion afresh, but he also has to contend with the Registrar’s findings of fact based on the oral evidence which, as the primary fact finder, the Registrar was best placed to decide.
Teo Seng Kiat v Goh Hwa TeckHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 333SingaporeCited for the principle that a judge in chambers should exercise his discretion based on the evidence taken by the Registrar and the latter’s findings on the same.
Tan Siew Bin Ronnie v Chin Wee KeongHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 178SingaporeFollowed Teo Seng Kiat without demur.
Sie Choon Poh (trading as Image Galaxy) v Amara Hotel Properties Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1076SingaporeCited for the principle that a judge in chambers should be especially slow to interfere with the Registrar’s findings of fact if the Registrar had taken oral evidence.
Akhinur Nashu Kazi v Chong Siak Hong (trading as Hong Hwa Marine Services)High CourtYes[2009] SGHC 138SingaporeCited for the principle that unless the assistant registrar’s findings of fact were not supported by the evidence, she could not vary those findings since the latter had had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in person.
Clark Jonathan Michael v Lee Khee ChungHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 209SingaporeCited for the principle that the assistant registrar’s findings of fact should not be disturbed unless they were plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend Chua Wee Bee) v Koh Chai KwangHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 1037SingaporeCited to show that Steven Chong Horng Siong JC concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the assistant registrar’s finding.
Compact Metal Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 91SingaporeCited for the principle that while a judge in chambers could relook the entire evidence tendered to the Registrar below, there was usually reluctance on the part of the judge to depart and disagree with the Registrar’s findings of fact.
G (formerly P) v P (Ancillary Relief: Appeal)England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[1977] 1 WLR 1376England and WalesCited to show that a judge in chambers would ordinarily have to consider the registrar’s evidential findings when exercising his discretion de novo.
Lauerman v Lauerman (Practice Note)Not specifiedYes[1992] 1 WLR 734England and WalesCited to show that it was also intended to moderate the old practice of hearing appeals from these district judges de novo, so that the appellate judge should now ordinarily proceed on the basis of the district judge’s findings of fact without further evidence from the parties.
Marsh v MarshNot specifiedYes[1993] 1 WLR 744England and WalesThe holding in Lauerman was approved of in Marsh.
Cordle v CordleNot specifiedYes[2002] 1 WLR 1441England and WalesCited to show that a district judge’s decision could only be reversed under r 8.1 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 if there had been some procedural irregularity or that in conducting the necessary balancing exercise the district judge had taken into account matters which were irrelevant, or ignored matters which were relevant, or had otherwise arrived at a conclusion that was plainly wrong.
Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) and anotherHigh CourtYes[2012] 3 SLR 1038SingaporeCited to show that advances in court processes, such as the availability of verbatim transcripts that are electronically recorded, have diminished the previously exclusive advantages of triers of fact.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court’s power of review with respect to such findings is limited because the trial judge is generally better placed to assess the veracity and credibility of witnesses.
Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei KuenCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 207SingaporeCited to show that where an appellate court had access to the same material as the trial judge, it was in as good a position as the trial court to assess the veracity of the witness’ evidence.
Ladd v MarshallNot specifiedYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the modified rule in Ladd v Marshall.
WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133SingaporeCited for the modified rule in Ladd v Marshall.
Swiss Butchery Pte Ltd v Huber Ernst and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 151SingaporeCited to show that it is not unheard of for a judge in chambers to recall witnesses on his own accord to testify before him in a Registrar’s Appeal.
The “Asia Star”High CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 1154SingaporeCited for the principle that a judge in chambers is entitled to draw the appropriate inferences from the affidavit or documentary evidence, as well as the Registrar’s notes of hearing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Assessment of damages
  • Registrar's decision
  • Standard of review
  • Findings of fact
  • Oral evidence
  • Documentary evidence
  • Confirmatory jurisdiction
  • Delegated jurisdiction
  • Judge in chambers
  • Plainly wrong
  • Against the weight of the evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • Civil procedure
  • Damages assessment
  • Registrar
  • Appeal
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal
  • Negligence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Road Traffic Accident Law80
Automobile Accidents70
Assessment of Damages60
Personal Injury60
Measure of Damages50
Civil Procedure40
Appellate Intervention40
Evidence30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Damages
  • Appeals
  • Legal Practice