$250k limit for district court civil suits does not include interest, legal costs: Judge

SINGAPORE - A lorry driver who was ordered to pay damages after he was sued over a traffic accident said he should not have to pay more than the $250,000 monetary limit for civil cases heard by a district court.

However, the plaintiff – another lorry driver who was injured in the 2017 accident – argued that he was entitled to interest and legal costs in addition to the maximum sum of $250,000 allowable as damages.

A district judge came down on the side of the plaintiff, and ruled that the $250,000 limit does not include interest and costs.

“Surprisingly, it appears that this question has not been directly addressed before,” said District Judge Liu Zeming in written grounds of decision published on Thursday.

Judge Liu ordered the defendant, Mr Zakaria Wahid, to pay the plaintiff, Mr Vellaikkannu Ramamoorthy, interest on more than $99,000, which amounted to $8,858.47, and $18,500 in costs, on top of the $250,000 in damages.

The sums will be borne by the defendant’s insurers.

The accident took place on April 1, 2017, while Mr Vellaikkannu, 46, was driving his employer’s lorry in Old Choa Chu Kang Road towards Sungei Tengah Road.

As he approached the junction, his vehicle was hit by the lorry driven by Mr Zakaria, who had made a fast right turn.

Mr Vellaikkannu, a migrant worker from India, suffered internal injuries, leg fractures and a heart attack.

In 2019, he sued Mr Zakaria, 51, seeking damages for the injuries, loss of income and medical expenses. Mr Zakaria agreed to bear 85 per cent of the liability.

As Mr Vellaikkannu was awarded the maximum $250,000 in damages, the question arose over whether the limit included interest and costs, which are typically ordered against the losing party in civil suits.

Under the current State Courts Act, a district court has jurisdiction to hear a case where “the amount claimed” does not exceed the monetary limit.

Mr Vellaikkannu’s lawyer, Ms V. M. Vidthiya, cited a 1999 High Court judgment to support her interpretation that the monetary limit excluded interest and costs.

In that earlier case, Justice Tay Yong Kwang, then a judicial commissioner, said interest and costs are discretionary and often increase with the passage of time, and it would therefore be nearly impossible for a claimant to accurately predict which court should hear his case if these elements were included in the monetary limit.

Mr Zakaria’s lawyer, Mr Willy Tay, argued that this decision is not relevant because it related to a provision that has since been repealed and was worded differently.

But Judge Liu said the repeal of the old provision was not intended to detract from the interpretation suggested in the High Court case.

She said it was the intention of Parliament to make it more straightforward and easier for litigants to determine which jurisdiction their claims would fall within.

The judge said when one considers the purpose behind the legislative amendments, it becomes even clearer that the interpretation put forward by Ms Vidthiya better accords with Parliament’s intention.