Wee Chong Jin CJ:

This appeal only relates to the quantum of damages awarded in a runningdown case.

The deceased's income, according to the case for the plaintiffs, came from two businesses - one in Cha'ah and one in Segamat. The business at Cha'ah, according to the evidence of the plaintiffs, was run by the deceased and the business at Segamat was run by the deceased's widow. The evidence of the plaintiffs is that the nett income from the Segamat business, which was a tuckshop catering for two schools in Segamat, was used by the widow for expenses in connection with the running of the household.

The learned trial Judge in his judgment accepted the plaintiffs' evidence as to the business at Cha'ah and also accepted the plaintiffs' evidence given in examination-in-chief that the deceased ran the tuckshop at Segamat with the assistance of his wife. On that basis he assessed the contribution from the deceased to the family at $250 a month.

The only ground of appeal is that the learned trial Judge failed to take into account the fact that in respect of the Segamat business the widow, by her own exertions, contributed towards the household expenses.

In my view the evidence on record clearly discloses that the deceased took no part in the business at Segamat and to that extent the learned trial Judge misapprehended the facts in this particular case when he arrived at the sum of $250 a month as the value of the dependency.

It is conceded by Counsel for the respondents that the deceased would have had to pay $70 to $80 a month to employ someone to take the place of the widow on the assumption that she did not run the business at Segamat.

In my view, the amount of the dependency, bearing in mind that the evidence in respect of the Cha'ah business was so unsatisfactory, should be at a figure of $180 a month and on that figure, according to the figures available and accepting the learned trial Judge's finding on life expectation to be 13 years (which has not been disputed in this appeal), I would substitute the amount to be awarded as general damages at $20,282.40 and I would, therefore, allow the appeal to the extent that the total amount of damages should be reduced by the difference between $28,170 and $20,282.40.

JUDGMENT

Thomson LP:

I agree with what my Lord has said and I also agree with his conclusion that the damages for loss of support should be reduced to $20,282.40.

I would, however, add one observation of a general nature. This is by no means the first appeal this Court and its predecessor have had to deal with in which somewhat insufficient attention has been given at the trial to the question of giving adequate evidence on the question of quantum of damages. It is for Counsel in such cases to devote a little more attention to that aspect of the matter in future. As Lord Goddard said in the case of Bonham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel, Ltd. [1948], 64 TLR 177, 178:

Plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, and, so to speak, throw them at the head of the Court, saying: 'This is what I have lost; I ask you to give me these damages'. They have to prove it.

The appeal is allowed; the general damages for loss of support are reduced to $20,282.40; the appellant will have his costs and the deposit should be paid out to the appellant.

Tan Ah Tah J

concurred.

Appeal allowed.