LOW WOON HONG v LIM CHUN YONG (LIN JUNXIONG)

Facts

On 12 February 2018 Mr Lim Chun Yong, then 38 years old, was a front seat passenger in the middle car of a three-vehicle chain collision in Malaysia and suffered serious injuries, including traumatic brain injury causing cognitive impairment and reduced motor control. He had started work as a finance executive at the Society for the Aged Sick days earlier at $3,500 a month; that employment was later terminated, and in August 2023 he became a full-time resident of Orange Valley Nursing Home. His wife and deputy sued the drivers and owners of all three vehicles. Liberty General Insurance Berhad, the insurer of the middle car, which had repudiated liability under its policy because the driver lacked a valid licence, intervened as sixth defendant.

The trial judge apportioned liability among the drivers and owners and awarded damages totalling $4,700,960.28, and also held Liberty liable for costs alongside its insured. Liability appeals were discontinued. AD 54, AD 55 and AD 56 challenged several heads of damages, and AD 92 was Liberty's appeal against the costs order.

Issues

1. Whether the award for loss of future earnings should be discounted for uncertainty in Mr Lim's employment history, and whether employer references were admissible business records.
2. Whether future nursing care should be costed at a cheaper home, at a four-bedder rather than two-bedder ward, or with a later move to home care.
3. Whether the awards for future occupational therapy, caregiving during home leave and past family caregiving were justified.
4. Whether Liberty was rightly made liable for costs as a non-party intervener.

Holding

The Appellate Division allowed AD 54, AD 55 and AD 56 in part and dismissed AD 92. Loss of future earnings was reduced by 30% to $1,116,602.70; future nursing care was recalculated on four-bedder rates to $1,172,747.70; future occupational therapy was reduced to $77,868; and the $11,124 for future caregiving on home leave was set aside for the appellants who appealed it, leaving the insured defendants liable. The awards for pre-trial loss of income, incurred nursing expenses and pre-admission caregiving were upheld. An application to adduce surveillance evidence was dismissed, and costs orders were made.

Reasoning

The court rejected the arguments on retirement age, staggered increments and revised CPF rates, since damages are assessed at trial. But Mr Lim had worked only days in the new job while on probation, and his record showed significant gaps. The references were inadmissible hearsay, not routine business records, and the wife's bare evidence that he supported the family was unsupported, so a 30% discount was warranted.

Orange Valley was reasonable, as there was no evidence the cheaper home could care for him, and station in life was not the test. There was no evidence a two-bedder gave better care than a four-bedder, since his food-driven outbursts mostly occurred in common areas, and a move home at 56 was not explored at trial. Occupational therapy was beneficial, but its future frequency was uncertain, justifying a 30% discount. Paying for caregiving on home leave on top of full nursing home costs was double counting.

Following Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 689, the fair value of family caregiving may be awarded without proof of lost income. Liberty's appeal was academic, as it accepted liability for the insured's costs, and its intervention and conduct of the defence justified the order.

From the judgment