Abdul Hadi bin Hamdan v Goldin Enterprise Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 192
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 1990 of 2011 (Registrar’s Appeal Subordinate Courts No 116 of 2012)
• Published date: 06 November 2012
• Year: 2012
• Hearing Date: 06 August 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Liew Teck Huat (Global Law Alliance LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Edwina Fan (United Legal Alliance LLC)
• Subject Matter: Work Injury Compensation Act
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 192

Lee Seiu Kin J :

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.

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 plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors to make a claim under common law. The defendant’s solicitors replied and took the position that the plaintiff was precluded from making a claim under common law and tendered a cheque in payment under the Notice of Assessment. On 27 July 2010, the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the commissioner of labour (“the commissioner”) to state the plaintiff’s objection to the Notice of Assessment pursuant to s 25(1) of the Act. Although this provision states that such objection must be made within 14 days of service of the Notice of Assessment, it also provides that the commissioner had a discretion to allow a longer period. In the event, the commissioner allowed the objection to be made out of time and proceeded to refer the plaintiff’s objection to the work injury compensation medical board (“WICMB”) for a medical assessment in accordance with regulation 4 of the Work Injury Compensation (Medical Board) Regulations (Cap 354, Rg 6, 2010 Rev Ed). By letter of 3 March 2011, the commissioner notified the plaintiff that the WICMB had made an assessment of 17% permanent incapacity. This would translate to a payment of about $30,600 under the Act. In the same letter the commissioner requested the parties to attend a pre-hearing conference on 16 March 2011. However at that hearing, the plaintiff’s solicitor informed the commissioner that the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the 17% awarded and had given instructions to withdraw the plaintiff’s claim under the Act. This was confirmed in the letter from the plaintiff’s solicitors to the commissioner dated 30 March 2011. The plaintiff filed the writ in this suit on 30 June 2011. The defendant applied to strike it out on the ground that s 33(2)(a) of the Act prevented the plaintiff from pursuing this claim. Before me, the plaintiff appealed against the decision of the district judge ordering the claim to be struck out.

Section 33(2)(a) of the Act provides as follows:

Limitation of employee’s right of action 33. —(1) …

(2) Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B), no action for damages shall be maintainable in any court by an employee against his employer in respect of any injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment — (a) if he has a claim for compensation for that injury under the provisions of this Act and does not withdraw his claim within a period of 28 days after the service of the notice of assessment of compensation in respect of that claim;

…

Counsel for the defendant, Miss Fan, pointed out that the Notice of Assessment was served by the commissioner on 1 February 2010. The 28-day period for withdrawal of the plaintiff’s claim expired on 1 March 2010. The plaintiff only withdrew it more than one year later, on 16 March 2011. Miss Fan submitted that the plaintiff was precluded from making his claim in this suit by operation of s 33(2)(a) of the Act as he had not withdrawn his claim under the Act within the 28-day period.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Liew, submitted that the term “notice of assessment” in s 33(2)(a) of the Act ought not to be read with reference to s 24(2)(a) and that, on a consideration of the policy and objectives behind the Act, where an objection has been made, it should refer to an order made by the commissioner after he had conducted a hearing under s 25D and made an order for compensation under that provision. Since, in the present case, the plaintiff had withdrawn his claim prior to such hearing, the plaintiff was not precluded from proceeding with his claim in this suit.

I did not agree with the plaintiff’s position and dismissed the appeal on the simple ground that the Act is very clear on this. The term used in s 33(2)(a) of the Act to describe the event from which the 28-day period runs is “service of the notice of assessment of compensation”. The provision in which the term “notice of assessment of compensation” is first used in s 24 of the Act, which provides as follows:

Commissioner to assess compensation payable

24.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner shall have power...