Severing the Hunt for Tortfeasor-Caregiver Compensation: The Singaporean Rejection of Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350 (HL)
| Pages | 96-114 |
| Date | 01 April 2025 |
| Published date | 01 April 2025 |
| Author | Jun Xiang Wong |
96
Cambridge Law Review (2025) Vol 10, Issue 1
Cambridge Law Review
(2025) Vol 10, Issue 1, 96–114
Severing the Hunt for Tortfeasor-Caregiver
Compensation: The Singaporean Rejection of
Hunt v Severs
[1994] 2 AC 350 (HL)
JUN XIANG WONG
ABSTRACT
In 2024, in the case of
Rajina Sharma v Theyvasigamani
[2024] SGHC 42 (‘
Rajandran
’), the
Singaporean High Court was faced with a highly similar fact pattern to that which arose in the
English case of
Hunt v Severs
[1994] 2 AC 350 (HL) 30 years earlier. A defendant tortfeasor
had caused a motorcycle accident to be suffered by a plaintiff victim, and the former subse-
quently provided voluntary care t o the latter at his own expense. However, the Singaporean
court departed from
Hunt
and allowed the plaintiff to claim compensation from the tortfeasor
for the voluntary care that he had provided himself. This article will compare the approaches
taken by the two courts, as well as the problems that arose from the original
Hunt
judgment.
It is s ubmitted that the
Rajandran
approach represents a more principled and just solution
than its English predecessor, but that this could be further improved by adopting a ‘closed
loop’ model of compensation proposed by the author.
Keywords:
Hunt v Severs
, law of tort, damages, personal injury, Singapore
I. INTRODUCTION
On 28 April 1994, the House of Lords handed down judgment in the case of
Hunt v Severs
,
1
holding that a victim of a tort who had received voluntary care from the tortfeasor could not
sue the tortfeasor for damages for the value of the voluntary care that the tortfeasor himself
had rendered. The case confirmed that, in English law, the underlying rationale for the recov-
ery of care rendered voluntarily to a victim in damages was to compensate the voluntary carer
for their services.
2
Though this outcome may look simple and sensible, it ran up against several prob-
lems. Arguably, the problem that left the most room for wider unfairness when applying
Hunt
to future cases was the lack of consideration of the tortfeasor’s insurance coverage in the
House of Lords. The existence of insurance coverage was not regarded as a separate party
BA Law student, Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments
on earlier drafts of this article. All errors that remain are my own. E-mail for correspo ndence: jxw22@cam.ac.uk.
1
[1994] 2 AC 350 (HL).
2
ibid 363.
Severing the Hunt for Tortfeasor-Caregiver Compensation
97
from the defendant himself in the finding of liability or calculation of damages, yet it was
materially important to how damages were to be paid.
30 years later, as misfortune would have it, a highly similar fact pattern arose in Sin-
gapore in the case of
Rajina Sharma v Theyvasigamani
(‘
Rajandran
’).
3
The High Court of
Singapore would take advantage of this opportunity to clarify the principles behind the recov-
ery of damages for gratuitous voluntary care and the position in Singaporean law when a tort-
feasor provided the voluntary care. In doing so, the High Court departed from
Hunt
and
reached the opposite solution, namely that the victim could be entitled to recover damages
from the tortfeasor without the risk of circularity of compensation arising. Essentially, this
meant that damages would not proceed in a circular fashion from the defendant to the plaintiff,
and then back to the defendant, aligning with the reality (where an insurer was present). In-
terestingly, this was the case even though the victim’s litigation representative was the tortfeasor
himself.
This article will seek to analyse the criticisms raised against
Hunt
, and how
Rajandran
departed from
Hunt
, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the
Rajandran
approach. In
Section II, the article will provide background on the case of
Hunt
, and Section III will ex-
amine several criticisms that have been raised in response to that case. The particular prob-
lems with the trust approach adopted in
Hunt
, and the author’s proposed model for resolving
the conundrum posed by that case, will be considered in Section IV. Section V will then
consider the background and holding of
Rajandran
, with Section VI examining the strengths
and weaknesses of that approach.
It is submitted that the outcome of
Rajandran
is a better and more principled one
compared to
Hunt
in the light of the criticisms of the latter, while any weaknesses in the
Rajandran
approach are unlikely to bear heavy consequences in practice. Although the origi-
nal case of
Hunt
is dated and the rule that it provides has been established for decades, the
recent example provided by the Singaporean model has provided a sound rejoinder to the
Hunt
rule, prompting a fresh re-examination of the
Hunt
rule.
II. BACKGROUND:
HUNT V SEVERS
A. THE FACTS AND JUDGMENT
On 14 September 1985, 22-year-old Ms Hunt was riding pillion with Mr Severs on his mo-
torcycle when she got into a serious accident. Her injuries left her paraplegic, and she subse-
quently spent a lot of time in various hospitals. However, Severs dutifully remained by her
side and provided her with care, including visiting her in hospital numerous times. The two
were married in 1990.
Therefore, at first blush, it might seem odd that Hunt would seek to sue Severs for
damages inclusive of the value of the services he had rendered gratuitously to her. However,
this becomes comprehensible when one considers the position of the insurer behind Severs,
providing him with coverage and a source of damages. The one who would be paying damages
for a successful claim in negligence, therefore, would not be Severs but his insurer. Severs,
presumably, was hopeful that, should his wife’s claim fully s ucceed, not only would she be
compensated out of his insurance plan for the costs of future care and her loss of earnings,
3
[2024] SGHC 42.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting