Chen Eng Kiat v Muhammad Helmy Bin Mohd Hasbollah

Facts

Mr Chen Eng Kiat, the claimant, was injured and his car was damaged on 25 October 2022 when a vehicle driven by the defendant, Muhammad Helmy bin Mohd Hasbollah, collided with his stationary car along Malcolm Road. He obtained interlocutory judgment on liability, and damages were assessed by Deputy Registrar Evans Ng in Magistrate's Court Originating Claim No 611 of 2025 (Assessment of Damages No 1036 of 2025). The defendant was unrepresented and did not attend.

The claimant sought general damages for back pain, $4,708 for renting a substitute car while his car was repaired, and $14,766 for repair costs. His affidavit said almost nothing about the special damages; the supporting documents were only exhibited. Questioned by the court, he said he had not paid for the repairs and had left the workshop to deal with the insurer.

Issues

1. Whether the claim for rental of a substitute car was proved
2. Whether the claimant proved that he suffered a loss of $14,766 in repair costs

Holding

The court allowed the claim in part. It granted general damages for pain and suffering based on the medical report and allowed the $4,708 rental claim, but rejected the repair-cost claim entirely. Costs were fixed against the defendant, with the court noting that it may award lower costs where a case is poorly prepared.

Reasoning

For rental charges, a claimant must show that the substitute car was an equivalent model and that the rental period and rate were reasonable. None of this was in the affidavit, but the court pieced it together from the exhibited accident statement, police report and rental invoice and compared it with the benchmark rental rates in the State Courts Practice Directions, so the claim succeeded.

The repair claim failed. The invoice for $14,766 that counsel relied on was not in evidence. The invoice that was exhibited was for a different amount, came from a workshop other than the one the car was sent to, and was addressed to an insurer that was not the claimant's. It was probably inadmissible hearsay and did not describe the work done, and there was no surveyor's report on whether the work was necessary or reasonably priced. The claimant also testified that he had not paid and did not have to pay, and no material showed that he was liable to any workshop.

From the judgment