[2016] SGHC 46

“parate diagnosis by a psychiatrist of severe anxiety and panic attack and depression. Any mention of such an illness was not made by a psychiatrist. Furthermore, relying on Lee Mui Yeng v Ng Tong Yoo [2016] SGHC 46 (“Lee Mui Yeng”), the Defendant submitted that it would be incorrect to compartmentalise her psychiatric”

“o “out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings which the plaintiff has incurred down to the date of trial, and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation” (see Lee Mui Yeng v Ng Tong Yoo [2016] SGHC 46 (“Lee Mui Yeng”), at [63], citing British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] 1 AC 185 at 206). Thus, i”

“court in Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok Tong [2012] 2 SLR 85 (“Lee Wei Kong”) at [52]; see also the decisions of the High Court in Lee Mui Yeng v Ng Tong Yoo [2016] SGHC 46 (“Lee Mui Yeng”) at [105] and Tan Hun Boon v Rui Feng Travel Pte Ltd and another [2018] 3 SLR 244 at [46]–”

“Further, while a number of High Court decisions such as Muhammad Shaun Eric (on appeal), Lee Mui Yeng v Ng Tong Yoo [2016] SGHC 46 (“Lee Mui Yeng”) and Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and others [2021] SGHC 10 (“Noor Azlin”) seem to suggest that causation can still be challenge”

“In Lee Mui Yeng v Ng Tong Yoo [2016] SGHC 46, Kannan Ramesh JC (as he then was) provided the following helpful guidelines to take into consideration when assessing the damages for pain and suffering arising from a psychiatric condition (at [79]”