Introduction
In personal injury litigation, there is often a tension between two competing values. One is judicial efficiency which focuses on saving time and costs. The other is human empathy which aims to minimise the trauma experienced by the victim.
In 2022, we acted as lead counsel for the Plaintiff in a High Court matter, Dai Yi Ting v Chuang Fu Yuan. This case brought the tension between efficiency and empathy to the forefront. The resulting judgment has since become an important precedent in Singapore law regarding the issue of bifurcation of trials.
While the Court ultimately ruled on the side of procedural efficiency, the arguments we advanced regarding what we termed the Sensitive Plaintiff remain a crucial conversation for advocates representing vulnerable victims.
The Legal Battle: To Split or Not to Split?
Our client suffered severe injuries, including impairment to her brain function, following an e scooter accident.
The Defendant who was represented by the Legal Aid Bureau applied to bifurcate the trial. This refers to the splitting of the court hearing into two separate tranches. The first tranche would deal with the issue of liability. The second tranche which would take place only if the Defendant was found liable would determine the quantum of damages.
The Defendant relied on practical reasoning. If the Defendant was found not liable, there would be no need to spend time and money on the assessment of damages. It was an argument grounded entirely in efficiency and cost saving.
My Argument: The Sensitive Plaintiff
We opposed the application. Our primary concern was the well being of our client.
For a victim suffering from traumatic brain injury, the prospect of attending Court was already daunting. To require her to endure two separate proceedings and to relive the incident twice in giving evidence twice and undergoing cross examination twice would, in our view, be unjust and unfair.
We described her as a Sensitive Plaintiff and argued that the Court’s case management powers should be exercised with a view to reducing the risk of retraumatisation. We believed then, and still believe now, that procedural decisions must take into account the lived reality of victims who are already grappling with the emotional and psychological effects of their injuries.
The High Court’s Ruling
The High Court Judicial Commissioner acknowledged the concerns we raised. The judgment noted that the Court sympathised with the plight of our client.
However, the Court ultimately held that the legal test for bifurcation is centred on whether it is just and convenient for the efficient disposal of the matter. The Court concluded that while our client’s personal anxiety was genuine, it was not sufficient to outweigh the systemic benefits associated with bifurcation. The application was therefore allowed.
The decision established the principle that efficiency is the primary driver when the Court considers whether to bifurcate a trial.
Why This Case Matters
Although we did not succeed on this procedural point, the decision in Dai Yi Ting remains significant for several reasons.
First, it provides clear guidance for practitioners. Lawyers now have certainty that personal anxiety alone will rarely be enough to resist bifurcation.
Second, it serves as a reminder of the duty of an advocate. Even when the law leans towards systemic efficiency, it remains our responsibility to ensure that the human cost is placed before the Court. We must continue to speak up for clients whose vulnerabilities are not always captured within procedural rules.
As lawyers, we respect the Court’s decision and the precedent it sets. As guardians of our clients’ interests, we will continue to argue that the law should strive to be as humane as it is efficient.
Conclusion
In the end, despite the outcome on the issue of bifurcation, the matter concluded in a constructive and positive manner. The parties participated in mediation and entered into a private settlement agreement. This allowed our client to achieve closure without undergoing the strain of a contested trial.
It also demonstrated that even within an adversarial system, parties can still reach outcomes that reflect dignity, sensitivity and a genuine commitment to resolving disputes in a humane way.
