Abdul Hadi bin Hamdan v Goldin Enterprise Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2012
• Date: 17 September 2012
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 1990 of 2011
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Abdul Hadi bin Hamdan

Plaintiff

and

Goldin Enterprise Pte Ltd

Defendant

[2012] SGHC 192

Lee Seiu Kin J

District Court Suit No 1990 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 116 of 2012)

High Court

Employment Law—Work Injury Compensation Act—Plaintiff precluded from common law claim if claim under Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) was not withdrawn in time—28-day window within which to withdraw claim under the Act—Whether event from which time started running was service of notice of assessment for compensation or commissioner's order after conducting hearing under s 25 D and making order for compensation—Section 25 D Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant who suffered an injury at his workplace on 8 November 2008. He filed a claim for compensation (‘the statutory claim’) under s 11 of the Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’). On 1 February 2010, the commissioner of labour (‘the commissioner’) served a notice of assessment of compensation (‘Notice of Assessment’) under s 24 (2) (a)of the Act.

The plaintiff's solicitors then proceeded to make a claim under common law (‘the common law claim’) because the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation under the Act. On 27 July 2010, the plaintiff made an objection to the Notice of Assessment. The plaintiff then informed the commissioner at a hearing on 16 March 2011 that the plaintiff would withdraw the statutory claim, more than a year after the Notice of Assessment was served on the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed this writ for its common law claim on 30 June 2011 and the defendant applied to strike it out on the basis that the plaintiff, having made a statutory claim and not having withdrawn the statutory claim in time, was precluded from making a common law claim.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Section 33 (2) (a) of the Act made clear that an employee was precluded from maintaining a common law claim for damages if he did not withdraw his claim under the Act within 28 days after the service of a notice of assessment of compensation. In this case, the Notice of Assessment was served on the plaintiff on 1 February 2010 and the plaintiff only withdrew the claim more than a year later on 16 March 2011: at [3] and [4].

(2) The notice of assessment of compensation referred to in s 33 (2) (a)was also referred to in ss 24 and 25 (1). There was no basis for the plaintiff's position that the 28-day period only started running after the commissioner had conducted a hearing and made an order for the payment of compensation under s 25 D. The order for payment of compensation under s 25 D was a final order for payment after review and was very different from the notice of assessment of compensation. This reading was supported by the legislative history behind the amendment of s 33 (2): at [5] to [9].

Yang Dan v Xian De Lai Shanghai Cuisine Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 379 (refd)

Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 25 D, 33 (2) (a) (consd) ;ss 11, 24, 24 (2) , 24 (2) (a) , 25 (1) , 33, 33 (2)

Work Injury Compensation (Medical Board) Regulations (Cap 354, Rg 6, 2010 Rev Ed) reg 4

Workmen's Compensation Act 1975 (Act 25 of 1975) s 33 (1)

Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 5 of 2008)

Liew Teck Huat (Global Law Alliance LLC) for the plaintiff

Edwina Fan (United Legal Alliance LLC) for the defendant.

Lee Seiu Kin J

1 This appeal turns on the interpretation of s 33 (2) (a)of the Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’). The salient facts are as follows.

2 The plaintiff, who was an employee of the defendant at the material time, suffered an injury at his place of work on 8 November 2008. He duly filed a claim for compensation under s 11 of the Act and on 1 February 2010, the commissioner served a notice of assessment under s 24 (2) (a) of the Act (‘the Notice of Assessment’). The effect of the Notice of Assessment would be that the plaintiff would be entitled to be paid about $19,800 by the defendant. The plaintiff, who was unrepresented, instructed solicitors sometime in May 2010, and in that same month, the...