Blocked by a Manhole, Now Frustrated by a Legal Fight
In a twist that feels more like a bad sitcom than a courtroom drama, 47‑year‑old Chan Hui Peng finally signed on with her former foe, the Public Utilities Board (PUB). What started as a nightmare in 2015 and a ballooning lawsuit turned into a settlement that might just leave her pockets empty.
The Big Numbers that Got Smaller (and Problematic)
- Original demand: $20 million for injuries and damages after her slip down a manhole.
- Mid‑court truce: $5 million in an attempt to cut losses.
- New settlement (Nov 26): a confidential offer that nobody wants to spoil.
Why the Crunch Will Soon Be a Reality
Even though the offer was sweet, the legal costs will probably chew through the compensation banner. PUB is poised to ask for every penny spent on the case as a deterrent. “We’re telling her not to pull a fast one with these four days in court,” a PUB lawyer confided. If the fees are as steep as the board expects, the final payout could shrink to a lot less than the $5 million she was hoping to save.
What Happens Next (Because Court Work Ain’t Ever Over)
After a morning where Chan declared the claim “honest and legitimate,” she’s slated to file a discontinuance notice this afternoon – basically pulling the plug and walking away. Her lawyer Ivan Lee, while praising her legal battle, noted that the trial had taken a toll on her mental well‑being. He’s got a hot take: “If you’re losing your sanity over a manhole, we’ve got to rethink this whole approach.”
Bottom Line (Just Like a Toast with a Bit of Salt)
There’s a good chance that the money she’s about to get could be virtually eaten away by the cost of the legal circus. In short, having to fight a regulatory body out of a manhole may look heroic, but it could also leave her with little to show for it.
Fall resulted in fracture, bruises and psychiatric illnesses: Chan
The Unforeseen Drop: A Manhole Mishap
*Chan’s day began like any other, but on December 1, 2015, fate had a different plan. While walking near the intersection of Simon Road and Upper Serangoon Road, she slipped and went belly‑down into a 1.8‑meter‑deep manhole—guess the cleanup crew was MIA!
What Went Wrong?
*The Lawyer’s Take
*Medical Chaos
*Mindset Shift
*After the physical healing, the emotional toll struck harder than expected:
What We’ve Learned
*Final Thought
*If anyone ever sees an open hole on the road, remember: it’s not just a dent—it could be a chapter in someone’s life story that ends with a fall and a crawl into the depths of PTSD. Let’s keep our streets tidy and our mindsets safe.
Chan “putting on a farce”: PUB’s lawyers
Pub’s Lawyers Shake Up Chan’s Claims in Court
During a brief, four‑day trial, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) seasoned lawyers put a wrench in Chan’s story, turning her alleged fears and employment claims into crumbs of doubt.
The “Super‑Active” Social‑Media Profile
- Chan boasted that she’d been on the fence about meeting strangers, yet her Carousell account had been lit up for over three years and seven months.
- She tried to explain away the activity by saying she was sometimes not the one scrolling, adding that her psychiatrists and psychologists nudged her towards a “normal” life.
- But the lawyers shrugging told the judge that this “normal” activity is hard to believe.
Job Claims Gone Wrong
- Chan claimed she’d landed a business‑development gig just a month before the accident, and that she’d lost more than $1 million in earnings (based on a $11,500 monthly salary).
Reality check: The company she claims to work for is actually under her control. - The company’s former director is Chan’s mother‑in‑law, and her husband is a proxy for the shareholder.
- She even admitted that the current shareholder, Tan Yew Tiak, is her maternal uncle—something she denied just a day earlier.
Psychology Papers Under Scrutiny
- Grace Tan, another PUB lawyer, stated that Chan tried to get a psychologist from Tan Tock Seng Hospital to tweak her reports in 2016. The psychologist declined, since the alleged PTSD symptoms didn’t amount to a disorder.
- Following an initial hearing, the lawyer accused Chan of “having a proclivity to bend medical evidence to suit her storytelling.” He also argued that “there might have been a degree of embellishment,” citing psychiatric experts on the stand.
In the end, the judges saw far fewer honest facts than the dramatic drama Chan tried to pitch. The case shows that courtrooms, like real life, are full of twists that only the best evidence can spotlight.
