JU and Another v See Tho Kai Yin
[2005] 4 SLR 96; [2005] SGHC 140
Decision Date: 08 Aug 2005
Court: High Court
Coram: Lai Siu Chiu J
Counsel: V K Rai (V K Rai and Partners) for the plaintiffs, Lek Siang Pheng and Terence Tan (Rodyk and Davidson) for the defendants
Introduction
1 The first plaintiff is a Singaporean and a businesswoman by occupation. She had worked in Japan since the 1980s, travelled frequently (to Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan and China) and spent most of her time outside Singapore.
2 The second plaintiff is the first plaintiff’s son by the first plaintiff’s husband (“the husband”) who is a Chinese national from Shanghai. The first plaintiff married the husband in a customary ceremony in China in October 2000. The first plaintiff was then 43 years of age, her birth date being 27 June 1957. The husband was ten years younger than her, a fact which prompted opposition to the marriage from the husband’s family. The parties’ marriage was registered in Singapore on 28 November 2001.
3 The second plaintiff was born by Caesarean delivery on 23 January 2002 in Singapore and suffers from Down’s syndrome. As at the date of the trial, he was about two and a half years of age.
4 See Tho Kai Yin (the first defendant) is a medical doctor who practises as an obstetrician and gynaecologist under the name and style of The See Tho Clinic for Women (“the Clinic”) at 6 Napier Road, #07-11/12, Gleneagles Medical Centre, Singapore 258499. He is a visiting consultant attached to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore, with teaching responsibilities. The Family Clinic shares premises with the Clinic. However, it is a separate medical practice run by family physician Saleha Johari, who is the wife of the first defendant. When the first defendant took the stand, counsel for the plaintiffs sensibly informed the court that his clients withdrew their claim against The Family Clinic.
The issues:
62 There are three issues I need to determine in this case:
Conclusion:
(a) Did the first defendant owe a duty to the first plaintiff to schedule an appointment for her at the earliest possible date?
(b) Was the first defendant’s management of the first plaintiff’s pregnancy up to 24 November 2001 negligent or in breach of contract?
(c) If the answer to (b) is in the positive, did the breach of the duty of care cause the plaintiffs’ alleged losses?
dismiss the claims of both plaintiffs with one set of costs to the defendants.
[2005] 4 SLR 96; [2005] SGHC 140
Decision Date: 08 Aug 2005
Court: High Court
Coram: Lai Siu Chiu J
Counsel: V K Rai (V K Rai and Partners) for the plaintiffs, Lek Siang Pheng and Terence Tan (Rodyk and Davidson) for the defendants
Introduction
1 The first plaintiff is a Singaporean and a businesswoman by occupation. She had worked in Japan since the 1980s, travelled frequently (to Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan and China) and spent most of her time outside Singapore.
2 The second plaintiff is the first plaintiff’s son by the first plaintiff’s husband (“the husband”) who is a Chinese national from Shanghai. The first plaintiff married the husband in a customary ceremony in China in October 2000. The first plaintiff was then 43 years of age, her birth date being 27 June 1957. The husband was ten years younger than her, a fact which prompted opposition to the marriage from the husband’s family. The parties’ marriage was registered in Singapore on 28 November 2001.
3 The second plaintiff was born by Caesarean delivery on 23 January 2002 in Singapore and suffers from Down’s syndrome. As at the date of the trial, he was about two and a half years of age.
4 See Tho Kai Yin (the first defendant) is a medical doctor who practises as an obstetrician and gynaecologist under the name and style of The See Tho Clinic for Women (“the Clinic”) at 6 Napier Road, #07-11/12, Gleneagles Medical Centre, Singapore 258499. He is a visiting consultant attached to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore, with teaching responsibilities. The Family Clinic shares premises with the Clinic. However, it is a separate medical practice run by family physician Saleha Johari, who is the wife of the first defendant. When the first defendant took the stand, counsel for the plaintiffs sensibly informed the court that his clients withdrew their claim against The Family Clinic.
The issues:
62 There are three issues I need to determine in this case:
Conclusion:
(a) Did the first defendant owe a duty to the first plaintiff to schedule an appointment for her at the earliest possible date?
(b) Was the first defendant’s management of the first plaintiff’s pregnancy up to 24 November 2001 negligent or in breach of contract?
(c) If the answer to (b) is in the positive, did the breach of the duty of care cause the plaintiffs’ alleged losses?
dismiss the claims of both plaintiffs with one set of costs to the defendants.
No comments:
Post a Comment