Muthusamy v Ang Nam Cheow
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1979 |
| Date | 25 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 3 of |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1979] SGPC 2
Privy Council
Lord Wilberforce
,
Lord Russell of Killowen
and
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Privy Council Appeal No 3 of 1978
Nigel Murray and A Weiss (James & Charles Dodd) for the appellant
Graeme Hamilton QC (Charles Russell & Co) for the respondent.
Chow Yee Wah v Choo Ah Pat [1978] 2 MLJ 41 (folld)
Civil Procedure–Appeals–Reversal of findings of fact on appeal–Applicable principle
The respondent's car collided into the appellant's motorcycle at Upper Changi Road. In an action arising from the accident, the crucial question on liability depended on where in Upper Changi Road the collision took place. The trial judge found the respondent “was not a witness of truth” and concluded that the respondent was wholly to blame for the accident. The Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion and held that the appellant was wholly to blame. The appellant appealed to the Privy Council to restore the judgment of the trial judge.
Held, allowing the appeal:
(1) There were two matters in the appellant's evidence which led to error in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. First, the Court of Appeal assumed without justification that the appellant had changed his story. Second, the Court of Appeal erroneously concluded that the appellant had first seen the respondent's vehicle lights 59ft away when the appellant was found by the trial judge to be “not good at distances” and had given a different estimate which was far beyond 60ft in his other evidence. The Court of Appeal treated these as “undisputed facts” but they were not: at [11] to [14].
(2) An appeal to a Court of Appeal was a rehearing of the case. But such a court was much fettered in practice in its ability to disagree with findings of a trial judge, particularly when they were restricted to the judge's notes of the evidence: at [16].
(3) The Court of Appeal failed to appreciate the practical limitations upon its ability in the circumstances of the case to disagree radically with the conclusion of the trial judge, and based its disagreement upon unsound grounds: at [17].
Judgment reserved.
Lord Russell of Killowen(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal Singapore by the plaintiff in a road accident case. The trial judge, D C D'Cotta J concluded that the defendant (present respondent) was wholly to blame for the accident, in which the plaintiff was gravely injured. The Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion, and held that the plaintiff (present appellant) was wholly to blame.
2 At about 11.00pm on 22 May 1973 the defendant was driving an Opel Commodore 2000 car, borrowed from his employer, from the city towards Changi Point where he lived. It is convenient to describe the city as to the north and Changi Point to the south to conform to the top and bottom of the police plan of the area. The defendant had been at a Chinese wedding party in the city, and was driving alone. The road was Upper Changi Road. It, perhaps curiously, had on the east side of the “centre” dotted line a lane width of about 13ft, while the width of the lane on the west side was some 18ft.
3 Coming into Upper Changi Road on its east side was Tangmere Road. It forked just before joining Upper Changi Road, the right fork going towards the city. That fork had a continuous white line dividing it into two lanes.
4 The plaintiff had finished his work and on a reasonably elderly motorcycle was going home. This journey, to which he was habituated, involved his taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Goh Chok Tong; JB Jeyaretnam
- Leong Sze Hian v Teo Ai Choo
-
Teo Ai Choo v Leong Sze Hian
... ... Privy Council - see for example Khoo Sit Hoh v Lim Thean Tong [1912] AC 323, Chow Yee Wah & Anor v Choo Ah Pat [1978] 2 MLJ 41 and Muthusamy v Ang Nam Cheow [1979] 2 MLJ 271 .Counsel for the appellant contended that this case falls squarely within category III as enunciated by Lord ... ...
-
Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong
...Khoo Sit Hoh v Lim Thean Tong [1912] AC 323; 2 BLSS 331 (refd) Merivale v Carson (1888) 20 QBD 275 (folld) Muthusamy v Ang Nam Cheow [1979-1980] SLR (R) 188; [1978-1979] SLR 25 (refd) Onslow v Horne (1746) 2 Bl W 750; 96 ER 439 (refd) Robinson v Ward (1958) 108 LJ 491 (folld) Silkin v Beave......