Victim compensation for medical expenses tested by Singapore Court of Appeal

Brief facts

On 9 January 2020, the respondent was crossing the road when she was collided into by a vehicle driven by the appellant. She then commenced action against the appellant for damages arising out of the personal injuries sustained and other consequential losses.

As part of her claim for damages, she alleged that the appellant had to compensate her for an amount of $39,515.08 comprising of:

1. Generic Government subsidies of $19,211.57
2. Pioneer Generation subsidies of $148.88; and
3. Government grants for Community Hospital Services and medical drugs of $20,155.16

At first instance, the respondent was not allowed to recover the amounts. This decision was confirmed in the District Court. On subsequent appeal to the High Court, the High Court judge allowed the recovery of the sums on the basis that the subsidies in question fell within the benevolence exception to double recovery as they were meant to assist the respondent with her medical bills and were therefore not meant to benefit a tortfeasor. At the same time, the High Court had directed the respondent to contact the Ministry of Health to explore the possibility of returning the grants and subsidies recovered.

Decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal found that:

1. Damages are generally compensatory in nature and aimed at placing a victim in a position as if a breach of contract or tort had not occurred.
2. Generally, any gain or collateral benefits received by a victim would be taken into account in calculating damages to be awarded by deducting the same from the damages assessed to be recoverable by the victim.
3. The two established exceptions to the rule are the Benevolence exception (where a victim receives monies from the benevolence of third parties moved by his or her misfortune) and the Insurance exception (where the victim had received payments from an insurance payout from a policy for which he or she had paid premiums for).
4. As a general rule to aid parties in determining whether a head of claim falls foul of the rules against double-recovery, the Court of Appeal set out the following key indicia to consider in establishing the objective intended purpose of a payment:

1. Contribution
   • Whether the victim contributed to the relevant payment
2. Indemnity for loss
   • Whether the payment is in the nature of an indemnity for, or is targeted directly at, the type of loss for which damages were sought.
   • If the payment is targeted at the type of loss for which damages were sought, then it is generally not subject to recovery from a tortfeasor.
3. Source of payment
   • Whether the payment can be traced to some other person than the victim
   • If the source of payment is from the tortfeasor, then it is generally accepted that this has to be deducted against damages awarded.
   • If the source of the payment arises out of private benevolence of a third party, then these amounts are clearly meant for the benefit of the victim above and beyond damages recoverable.
   • If the source of payment is the government, this would generally indicate that there is no intention for the payment to be enjoyed on top of damages recoverable.
4. Group of persons to whom payment is made available
   • Whether the payments were available to members of a group at large (in this case, all Singapore citizens) or whether the payments are only available to a select group based on their individual characteristics.

5. Based on the key indicia, it is clear that the subsidies in this case were not meant for the respondent’s enjoyment above and beyond damages recoverable from the tortfeasor. As such, the sums are not recoverable from the appellant and there was no further need for repayment of the same to the Ministry of Health.

This appeal was conducted and argued by Patrick Yeo, Lim Hui Ying and Joyce Ooi.