Poongothai Kuppusamy v Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd and another

Ms Poongothai Kuppusamy, a Malaysian citizen, was 48 years' old when, on 23 September 2017, she was riding pillion on a motorcycle that was involved in an accident with a lorry driven by an employee of Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd. She had been working since 1 August 2017 as a security officer for Eve3r Knight Consultancy Services Pte Ltd. As a result of the accident she suffered a below-the-knee amputation of her left leg, an injury behind the left knee requiring a skin graft, knee pain and lower back pain. Eve3r terminated her employment and she returned to live in Johor Bahru. Her first prosthetic limb proved unsuitable, and in February 2023 she was fitted with a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic limb (MPCP) recommended by her prosthetic expert.

In Suit No 808 of 2020 the court had earlier found Huationg wholly liable. This judgment dealt with the assessment of damages. Ms Kuppusamy claimed pre-trial loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, loss of earning capacity, medical and future medical expenses, and transport and future transport expenses. Both sides called prosthetic and orthopaedic experts, and Eve3r's operations manager gave evidence about her pay and prospects.

1. Whether her pre-trial and future earnings losses should include allowances, overtime, increments and a likely promotion, and whether she failed to mitigate her loss
2. What damages were due for pain and suffering, including the amputation, her right knee and the skin-graft scars
3. Whether she could recover both loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity, and how the multiplier should be set for a foreign claimant
4. Whether the cost of the MPCP and its future replacements was reasonably recoverable

On earnings, the judge found that her monthly wage would have been at least S$1,300 and that she would have worked overtime, since she was single, wanted the extra pay and colleagues generally did so. Overtime was set conservatively, reflecting the legal cap once the employer's exemption likely ended. Following Tan Siew Bin Ronnie v Chin Wee Keong [2008] 1 SLR(R) 178, the employer's high attrition rate was a risk that had not materialised for her, so a promotion was assumed, but conservatively. Huationg bore the burden of proving a failure to mitigate and did not discharge it: she had tried to find work and her disability and painful first prosthesis made that difficult.

For the amputation, the award in Tan Juay Mui was used as a baseline, adjusted for inflation and given a modest uplift for continuing pain. The osteoarthritis claim failed because both experts considered the symmetrical changes in her knees likely age-related, and for similar reasons she did not prove the need for a knee replacement. The skin-graft scars were compensated: the material facts were pleaded and Huationg suffered no undue prejudice, applying How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals [2023] SGCA 21.

Future earnings were assessed on the basis that she was unlikely to find security work in Singapore given her disability, less her expected earnings as a sales assistant in Malaysia, with a working life to age 63. The Singapore actuarial tables were not directly applicable to a Malaysian resident, so the arithmetic approach was used with a cross-check. Following Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P Hotel [2016] 4 SLR 829, loss of earning capacity is a distinct head, and she had been prevented from competing for her pre-accident job.

Her limited financial means were irrelevant to whether the MPCP was reasonable: the question was what put her as close as possible to her pre-accident position, and even Huationg's expert accepted it was more effective for her activity level. Future replacements were therefore MPCPs, but the claimed 10% annual price inflation was not proved. Transport expenses without receipts were allowed on conservative estimates.

The court allowed the claim in part and awarded Ms Kuppusamy damages against Huationg of S$838,224.52, including S$124,366.04 for pre-trial loss of earnings, S$76,500 for pain and suffering, S$159,231.14 for loss of future earnings, S$7,500 for loss of earning capacity, S$114,285.63 for medical expenses and S$354,074.74 for future medical expenses. Claims for aggravation of osteoarthritis and a right knee replacement were disallowed. Interest had been agreed, and the parties were to file costs submissions if they could not agree.