Roberts, .CJ.

PRELIMINARY.

Sim Chew Foon ("Alice") was killed in a traffic accident on 13th December, 1992. I have already decided, in a judgment dated 31st January, 1996, that Suphart Phomkote, the authorized driver of the defendant, Hj Abd Khani bin Hj Abd Kadir, was wholly to blame. The amount of damages is here considered separately.

Probate was granted to Alice's husband Wong Fook Cheung ("Richard") on 18th March, 1993. He claims both on his own behalf and on behalf of the dependants as administrator of Alice's estate.

Richard has claimed on behalf of Sim Hoot Chui ("the father"), Chong Nyuk Moi ("the mother") and her sons Wong Weng Joe ("the elder son") and Wong Joee Yue ("the younger son") as well as for himself. All of them are said to have suffered loss and damage as a result of Alice's death.

[Page 2]

Fortunately, the parties have been able to agree the amount of funeral expenses, at $12,800. This amount should be paid to Alice's estate. The amount of $10,000 for bereavement (all of which should go to Richard) is statutory.

THE ORDER.

Claims for fatal accidents and personal injuries are dealt with in the Emergency (Fatal Accidents and Personal Injuries) Order, 1991 ("the Order") which came into force on 1st February, 1991 and applies to all actions commenced after the latter date, as this was.

By section 3(3) of the Order, an action for fatal injuries shall be for the benefit of the "dependants" of the deceased.

"Dependant" is defined in section 3(3) as including the husband of the deceased (Richard), the parents of the deceased (Alice's father and mother) and any child of the deceased (Alice's two children). The claim of John Sim, a brother of the deceased, was abandoned during the action.

Section 6(1) of the Order specifies that such damages may be awarded (other than damages for bereavement) as are "proportioned" to the injury resulting from the death to the dependants respectively.

By section 6(3) of the Order, if damages are payable to a widow, in respect of the death of her husband, her re-marriage, or prospects of it, shall not be taken into account. This sub-section does not refer to the possible re-marriage of the husband of the deceased. Nevertheless, in case the matter becomes relevant, I should say that I see no reason why the same principle should not apply in the case of a deceased wife, so that the prospect of the re-marriage of Richard should be ignored.

It is of importance to note that, by section 7 of the Order, any benefits which may [Page 3] accrue as a result of the death or to be disregarded. This means that the substantial insurance payment made to Richard, as a result of Alice's death, should be ignored.

The effect of death is dealt with by section 11 of the Order, which provides that damages recoverable for the benefit of the estate shall not include any damages for loss of income in respect of any period after the death.

METHODS OF CALCULATION.

There appear to be two possible methods of approach to the dependency. Where the information as to the actual expenditure of a deceased is sparse, it is usual to assume that a deceased husband spent 25% of his net income for his own purposes (if there are children to support) leaving 75% of the income to be regarded as the dependency. By net income, I mean his gross income, less any business expenses incurred in earning it. Generally speaking, this method applies where he is the only earner and his wife and family are wholly dependent upon him, which was not so in this case.

The alternative procedure, if details of the expenditure of the deceased are available, as they were here, is to attempt to assess the contribution of the deceased to the various dependants, both in known circumstances and looking ahead, and to use this as the basis for the application of a suitable multiplier.

I have adopted the second procedure, since there have been produced, on behalf of the plaintiff, books kept by Alice, in considerable detail, though some of the en