Singapore High Court affirms UK approach for determining a Plaintiff’s knowledge under the Limitation Act

Would a negligence claim be considered time-barred if a claimant does not have the requisite knowledge to bring the claim due to cognitive impairments suffered as a result of the accident? In Leow Peng Yam v Aryall Kang Jia Dian [2022] SGHC(A) 25 , the Appellate Division of the High Court (“Appellate Division”) considered this question and held that the claim was not time-barred under the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed).

Interestingly, this is the first reported decision by the Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court that upheld a lower court’s decision to apply the prevailing test under English law as set out in Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council [2005] 1 AC 76. The Adam test looks at a reasonable person placed in the situation of the claimant who would have been expected to acquire the requisite knowledge to bring such a claim.

In this case update, Wei Shing Ngo, Counsel of the Firm, discuss the parameters of the Adams test and the reasoning behind the Court’s decision.

The full article can be found here: Case Update (October 2022)