LIANG CHI AIR-CONDITION PTE LTD v ATP ENGINEERING PTE LTD

Facts

Liang Chi Air-Condition Pte Ltd's vehicle was damaged in a road traffic accident caused by a driver of ATP Engineering Pte Ltd. The claimant entered interlocutory judgment, and a Deputy Registrar assessed damages in Magistrate's Court Originating Claim No 3307 of 2025 (Assessment of Damages No 1076 of 2025). The defendant was absent. The claim included consequential losses such as the cost of hiring a replacement vehicle during repairs.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to its consequential losses, including the cost of renting a substitute vehicle during repairs.
2. What a claimant's affidavit of evidence-in-chief must set out to support a rental or loss of use claim.

Holding

The Deputy Registrar allowed the claim for consequential losses, including the cost of renting a substitute vehicle during repairs, and issued brief grounds mainly to remind practitioners of the evidential requirements for such claims.

Reasoning

The court called the matter simple and gave grounds only to remind lawyers of requirements that are often overlooked in such cases.

A claim for rental or loss of use has to be supported by the damaged vehicle's details stated in the affidavit itself: make and model, type, engine capacity, age or registration date, ordinary use, and the rental actually paid or the loss-of-use sum proposed. The court uses these to judge whether the rate claimed is reasonable, yet here, as often happens, the affidavit gave only the registration number. The claimant carries the burden of proving its damages even when the other side is absent, and the court will not necessarily draw out missing evidence through its own questions; leaving out material facts puts the claimant at risk of only nominal damages.

From the judgment