LAW203 Legal Writing and IT Essentials

TMA01

Write a case review of Ng Weng Cheong v Soh Oh Loo & Anor [1993]

SGCA 22, responding to the facts of the case and explaining what you

understand to be the key finding(s) of the court.

18th February 2017

Rachelle Jillian Chew Yiqin

In the case of Ng Weng Cheong v Soh Oh Loo & Anor, the matter was brought up to the Court

of Appeal on two issues. The first issue was whether or not the first respondent had breached

the duty of care when approaching a pedestrian crossing. The second issue was on

contributorily negligence by the appellant. The Court of Appeals final decision was different

to that of the High Court and there were notably quite a few key issues that the Court of

Appeal addressed.

At first, the High Court had deemed that the first respondent was not negligent and did not

breach the duty of care based on the fact that the appellant had been crossing when the light

was red. As such, it was right for him to make the assumption that no one would be on the

pedestrian crossing, allowing him to continue driving. However, the appellant had appealed

on the basis that the first respondent should have taken caution when approaching a

pedestrian crossing regardless if the appellant was crossing when the red light was on. There

was no indication that the first respondent had slowed down when nearing the pedestrian

crossing. Neither did he, when he noticed his view was blocked, take into consideration that

there might be someone on the pedestrian crossing. In any case, it was the first respondents

duty under r 5 and r 7 to act prudently while driving, especially when approaching pedestrian

crossings and junctions, and that duty is not affected by the actions of the pedestrian, even if

the pedestrian was negligent. The Court of Appeal took on this view and respectfully Commented [DK1]: To take on something is to challenge
something.

disagreed with the High Court and the Judicial Commissioners decision. While the High Court

relieved the first respondents duty of r 5 and r 7, the Court of Appeal was of the view that it

was wrong of the first respondent to assume that there would be no one on the crossing. As

a result, the first respondent was found to be negligent.

As the first respondent was established to have been negligent. There was the issue of

contributory negligence by the appellant. It was found and the Judicial Commissioner agreed

with the finding that the appellant had crossed when the light was red. Furthermore, the

appellant did not heed to the red light, neither did he stop crossing when other vehicles were

approaching and had come to a stop. Taking into consideration the number of concerns that

had occurred before the accident to which the appellant had chosen not to give care to, the

Court of Appeal found the appellant to be contributorily negligent. In addition, while the

Upson case was referred to, where the apportion of blame was 50:50, the judgment was

made under English laws where it is not an offence to jaywalk, and therefore it would be

equally or more so the drivers fault in London than in Singapore, where jaywalking is an

offence. Therefore, the Court of Appeal apportioned the blame 70% to 30% in favor of the

first respondent. Commented [DK2]: Actually quite a good piece of work

despite the jarring points noted above. Do have a closer
read of the case.

What you do need to be careful about is the inter-mingling

of your summaries of fact and law. It worked in a simple
case like this, but could be messy in complex cases.
Remember you need to summarise the facts, the relevant
law, the decision.