Past Cases

A couple came in to our office and gave us the jelly cakes. It was supposed to be a surprise. They were our clients. We acted for them in family disputes. As the dust settles, and with some closure, we became friends.

After decades of legal practice, I have learned to take each case in its stride. Bozy and I strive to bridge the gap the best we know how.

When you have to step into a lawyer’s office, you know things are not going as you have hoped. The problem can be daunting, likewise the law office.

I know it is not a good feeling, to put it mildly. It’s not like you have a choice. For many, the deliberation is intense.

And I do commend their resolve to find resolution, as best as the law can deliver. The law is about people, it’s about issues that are dear to their heart.

Lawyers do have their job all cut out for them too. And trust me, not all the pieces are neat cuts. They come in all shapes and sizes.

There are rough edges to sandpaper through. And there are pieces that are quite a challenge as we are dealing with human emotions with a history that casts a long shadow along the way. One often struggles to let go and move on.

Lawyers also struggle to let go and move on. We are humans too. Some cases draw you in, and give you nights of unrest.

We don’t often go home leaving our cases behind. We go home with them, especially the tough cases, thinking of ways to untie the legal knots. And when we finally untie the knots, after months, even years, the friendships show. And the jelly cake, well, it’s a bonus.

As lawyers, that’s our defining moment. We meet our clients at their crossroad. We offer our hand as a guide. We take the journey to find closure. And when we finally arrive, taking them home, we say our goodbyes.

Some of them do remember us. For our paths had once crossed, and we’ve made a difference.

Our Michael Han and Bozy Lu acted for an accused person who was charged with inconsiderate driving causing hurt (section 65(4) of the Road Traffic Act). The accused driver was making a right turn when a motorcyclist travelling on the opposite side of the road collided into his car. As a result, the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised for close to two months.

After pleading guilty to the charge of inconsiderate driving causing hurt, the accused was sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the accused appealed.

In July this year, the appeal was heard before Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. One of the main contentions is the definition of hurt, and how the same is to be applied for purpose of sentencing.

No decision has yet been made on this appeal. The decision once out will clarify the law in this area.

‍

Our Michael Han & Bozy Lu acted for the Claimant. He was involved in a front-to-rear collision on the road. His car was stationary at that time, in response to red traffic lights ahead. At the time of the accident, he was a director of a multinational company.

Upon impact, his car surged forward and collided into a car in front. This case was particularly challenging because the plaintiff suffered from serious post-concussion syndrome.

Subsequently, he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. He struggled with the side-effects of pain killer and anti-depression medication. He lost his job and could not find permanent employment. He was a shadow of his former self.

For four years, he was in and out of hospital. He was later diagnosed to be treatment resistant and had to take medicine for life.

The assessment of damages was heard before a high court judge. Not satisfied with decision, the plaintiff appealed. The appeal was heard before two justices in the Appellate Division of the High Court and the damages were revised upward.

Our Michael Han acted for the Claimant. He was a construction worker. At the time, he was directed to collect a spade at the nearby store. When he returned to the worksite, a stationary excavator suddenly reversed without warning and ran over his leg and hip.

This case was unique because the suit was not just brought against the employer and the occupier. The Claimant also sued the excavator-rental company who rented out the excavator and the excavator driver.

At the court below, the Claimant’s claim against the excavator-rental company was dismissed. They were not held to be vicariously liable for the negligence of the excavator driver, who reversed the excavator and ran over the Claimant.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Claimant appealed. The hearing was heard before Justice Dedar Singh Gill. At that time of the development of the law, it was uncommon for two Defendants (in this case, the employer and the excavator-rental company) to be held vicariously liable for the negligence of their workers, who had caused the accident.

However, the High Court Justice justified the imposition of vicarious liability on both the employer and the excavator-rental company. He was of the view that the excavator-rental company had control of the work being carried out through the selection and training of their excavator driver. As such, they bore some liability for the accident.

The appeal decision clarifies the law on the dual vicarious liability of permanent and temporary employers.

Our Michael Han acted the Claimant. He was a construction worker. He was involved in an industrial accident when an excavator ran over his leg.

At that time, the Claimant was in front of the excavator when the driver was instructed to move forward. The one giving the instruction to move forward was a worker from another company. He was not authorised to give such instructions. But the instruction was given because the excavator was blocking the road and prevented another vehicle from entering a nearby worksite.

The Claimant sued the employer, occupier and the company, whose employee directed the excavator to move forward when the plaintiff was standing in front of the stationary excavator. At that time, the plaintiff was adjusting the road barricade to make way for approaching vehicles.

The Claimant proceeded with trial on liability, that is, to determine who is at fault. As the Claimant was standing at the blindspot of the excavator, he was adjudged to bear some liability for the accident.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Claimant appealed. The appeal was recently heard before a High Court Judge. Judgment was reserved and will be out soon.

Our Michael Han was Lead Counsel for another tragic road accident that left the victim, who was an innocent 22-yr old pillion rider. She was at that time a poly-grad training to be a paramedic.

As a result of the accident, she suffered from traumatic brain injury and critical skull fractures. From an active, vibrant and healthy  young lady, full of life, she now has to be taken care of for the rest of her remaining life by her  loving parents and siblings.

The suit was settled for a total sum of S$3.8m and The Straits Times reported that it was “among the highest reported settlements in a motorcycle accident claim in Singapore.”

You can click here to read the article.

This is a claim for money allegedly lent to our client (the Defendant) by a Claimant. Our Michael Han successfully defended against the claim.

The Claimant first met the Defendant sometime in end of 2006. They were both married, but not to each other. After the Claimant’s divorce in September 2009, the Defendant commenced a relationship with the Claimant in December 2009. They became intimate in May 2010. The Claimant alleged that she had lent the Defendant a total sum of S$300,000 on different five occasions between May 2010 and January 2011. She sued him for non-payment. The case went before a High Court Judge.

After a trial proper, where only the Claimant and the Defendant gave evidence, the Judge dismissed her claim for the lack of evidence. The main question is one of fact, that is, did the Claimant even transfer S$330,000 to the Defendant? The finding turned on the credibility of the Claimant and the limited documents submitted in support.

On the balance of probability, the Judge found that the Claimant had failed to prove her case. Her claim was dismissed in its entirety with costs payable to the Defendant.

Our Michael Han acted for an injured construction worker who was involved in an accident. At the material time, he was coming down an uncompleted staircase of a condominium still under construction. The staircase did not have any handrail.

The worker fell from the staircase mid-way. He suffered from back and shoulder injuries. The main basis of the claim against the employer was the failure to construct handrail on one side of the staircase.

After a trial at the State Court, the claim against the employer was dismissed. The worker then appealed and the hearing came before the former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.

He reversed the lower court’s judgment and apportioned liability equally. The employer therefore bore 50% of liability.

Our Michael Han acted for the mother of a young boy who was injured in a road traffic accident. He was crossing the road when the green man just came up. The Defendant/driver beat the red light and collided into the boy.

As a result, he suffered very serious brain injuries. The tragic accident left him a quadriplegic. He was totally dependent on his mother and siblings to take care of him for life. Based on the medical evidence submitted, the boy has a life expectancy of only 38 years old.

The accident has changed his life and took everything from him. His mother had to give up her work to take care of him. After a trial on assessment of damages, the court awarded a total sum of S$1.25m.

Dissatisfied with the decision, an appealed was filed. The hearing was heard before Justice George Wei. He allowed the appeal, and revised the award upward to S$1.64m.