Judgment Header
Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and Another [2005] SGHC 128
Loading…
[2005] SGHC 128
General Division of the High Court of Singapore21 Jul 2005Suit 872/2004
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 8 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“The first case is that of Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and another [2005] SGHC 128 (“Khoo Bee Keong”), where a bus failed to stop at a traffic-light controlled junction and negligently collided into a pedestrian just when he had started to cross the road. Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC”
“In this vein, the observation of Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC (as he then was) in Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and Another [2005] SGHC 128 at [68] in relation to expert evidence is apposite: if the materials used by the experts to derive their opinions are shaky or flawed, then the experts’ evidence will be of limited”
“Where the basis of an expert report is shaky or flawed, the conclusion arrived at will be of little or no use to the court (see the High Court decision of Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and Another [2005] SGHC 128 at [68]). Given that the Ferrier Hodgson report appears to be little more than a conduit for the Responden”
“In its closing submissions, Yew San, citing Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and another [2005] SGHC 128 at [78], argued “if the cross-examiner can show that the facts on which the expert relies are unreliable, his conclusions will not be acceptable”. However, Yew San never criticised the accuracy of th”
“fic analysis of matters which cannot be provided by lay witnesses and counsel, but as was aptly recognised by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC (as he then was) in Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and Another [2005] SGHC 128 at [80], an accident reconstruction is useful when it is “complemented by a realistic application to the”
“Bong’s data. Where the basis or starting point for an expert report is shaky or flawed, the conclusion arrived at will be of little or no use to the court (Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and another [2005] SGHC 128 at [68] and Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal [201”
“bmissions. However, the theories and opinions advanced as to how the incident happened must ultimately be based on the facts, not postulations and beliefs: see Khoo Bee Keng v Ang Chun Hong & another [2005] SGHC 128 at [68]. As such, findings on the following factual issues must first be made:”
“re drawn must necessarily be before the court so as to allow the court to ascertain whether the expert’s conclusions are properly founded: see for instance, Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and another [2005] SGHC 128 at [68], cited with approval in Muhlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 724”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and Another [2005] SGHC 128
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 872/2004
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2005-07-21
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.