(delivering the judgment of the Board): This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a personal injuries case. It relates only to the quantum of damages awarded. The award was made in the High Court of Singapore by Wee Chong Jin C.J., and was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal of Singapore.

On August 15, 1978 the appellant sustained serious injuries when she was thrown off a bus on which she was travelling as a passenger. The bus was owned by the respondent and operated by their servants. On August 31, 1979 the appellant issued a writ against the respondent claiming damages on the ground of their servants' negligence. Before the trial the parties agreed that liability should be apportioned as to 85% to respondent and as to 15% to the appellant. They also agreed on the amount of special damages at S$24,861.40, which included $24,000 for loss of earnings at $600 per month from the date of the accident till the date of trial. The sum of $600 per month was a net sum, based on a gross income of $680 per month. The only issue at the trial was the amount of general damages. At the end of the trial the learned Chief Justice gave judgment in favour of the appellant for 85% of $146,917.40. He itemised the damages in the following manner: — Pain and suffering$45,000.00 Loss of amenities$40,000.00Loss of future earnings$37,056.00Special damages (agreed)$24,861.40Total damages$146,917.40

Four witnesses, including two medical witnesses, were called on behalf of the appellant, and in addition some medical reports and other documents were admitted by agreement between the parties. After the evidence had been concluded counsel for both parties addressed the Court and made submissions on, inter alia, the amount which should be awarded for loss of future earnings. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appropriate award under that head would be $135,000. Counsel for the respondent contended for $37,056. The learned Chief Justice awarded $37,056, but without giving any explanation of his reasons for doing so. In fact he made no statement at all of the grounds of his judgment.

The failure to state the grounds of judgment is very much to be regretted. The Rules of the Supreme Court of Singapore deal specifically with this matter, in O.57 r. 5 which provides: —

"5 (1) When a notice of appeal has been filed, the judge who gave the judgement or made the order must, unless the judgment was written, certify in writing the grounds of such judgment or order; but delay or failure so to certify shall not prevent the appellant from proceeding with his appeal." (Emphasis added).

The need for a judge to state the reasons for his decision is no mere technicality, nor does it depend mainly on the rules of Court. It is an important part of a judge's duty in every case, when he gives a final judgment at the end of a trial, to state the grounds of his decision, unless there are special reasons, such as urgency, for not doing so. No special reasons exist in this case. An award of damages for personal injuries, particularly where the injuries are of the serious nature suffered by the present appellant, is a matter of great importance to the parties; especially to the plaintiff. The parties are entitled to know the judge's reasons; so are any appellate courts in the event of an appeal. In the present case, neither the parties nor the Court of Appeal nor their Lordships' Board can tell what conclusions the judge drew from the evidence or, except by inference, what process of reasoning led to his award.

Unfortunately, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is brief and almost devoid of reference to the facts, so that their reasons for upholding the judge's award are obscure. The notice of appeal and the petition of appeal to the Court of Appeal stated that the appeal was only against that part of the award giving $37,056 for prospective loss of future earnings, and that it was on the ground that that part of the award was inadequate. The resp