One of the quieter privileges of personal injury practice, and something I often share with younger lawyers I mentor, is seeing how the law develops not through dramatic shifts, but through careful clarification. Some cases never make headlines, yet they quietly shape how we practice long after they are concluded. Dai Yi Ting v Chuang Fu Yuan was one such case.
Several years ago, I acted together with my then colleague, Michelle Kaur, in this matter. At the time, there was limited guidance on when and how personal injury claims should be bifurcated. The High Court’s decision to issue written grounds filled that gap. It was a reminder that when the Court explains its reasoning, it is speaking not only to the parties, but to the profession.
Our client was a pillion rider injured in an electronic scooter accident on a university campus. What initially appeared to be a straightforward claim soon became more complex. Multiple parties were involved, including the rider, the rental company, and the university. This is often where younger lawyers first encounter the tension between procedural order and human reality.
During the proceedings, the Defendant applied to bifurcate the trial. Liability would be determined first, with damages assessed later if liability was established. On paper, this is efficient. In practice, it can be demanding for an injured plaintiff. Procedure is never abstract to the person living through it.
We resisted the application. Medical evidence was placed before the Court to explain that our client was a sensitive plaintiff who had suffered cognitive injuries. We explained that testifying and being cross examined on two separate occasions would heighten her anxiety and place additional strain on her wellbeing.
The Court was alive to these concerns. It acknowledged her vulnerability and expressed sympathy for the difficulty she would face in the litigation process. That recognition mattered. It is something I often remind younger lawyers not to overlook. Courts do see the person behind the pleadings.
At the same time, the Court allowed bifurcation. In its written grounds, it explained that case management decisions must still be made in accordance with established procedural principles. While the plaintiff’s circumstances were taken into account, they could not displace the structure the Court considered necessary to manage the case fairly and efficiently.
For those coming up in practice, this decision is a useful teaching point. Advocacy is not only about advancing a client’s position. It is also about preparing clients for how the system operates. When clients understand early that litigation follows structured rules that may not bend entirely to individual circumstances, they are better equipped to navigate the process with clarity rather than distress.
That, to me, is part of what good mentoring and good lawyering looks like.
