Chua Jian Construction and another v Zhao Xiaojuan (deputy for Qian Guo Liang)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 98
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appoo Ramesh and Vinodhan Gunasekaran (Just Law LLC)
• Docket Number: HC/Tribunal Appeal No 18 of 2017
• Date: 25 April 2018
• Hearing Date: 12 April 2018
• Subject Matter: Work Injury Compensation Act,Employment law
• Published date: 28 April 2018
• Defendant Counsel: Jogesh s/o Kantilal Doshi (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 98
• Year: 2018

Choo Han Teck J:

Qian Guo Liang (“QGL”) was born in China on 7 April 1969. He married Zhao Xiaojuan (“Zhao”) in 1993 and she gave birth to their only child, a daughter, in 1994. QGL came to work in Singapore in 2004. He was a manual worker in construction sites under various companies, but on 19 October 2013 he was employed by Chua Jian Construction, and was working at a site in Clementi Avenue 4. About 5.00pm on that day, his colleague found him lying motionless on the ground. Help was summoned when they realised that QGL was unconscious. He was taken to the National University Hospital and there diagnosed as having an intracerebral haemorrhage (“ICH”). Chua Jian Construction filed an incident report on 22 October 2013 which, after a year, culminated with an assessment of $272,500 compensation by the Ministry of Manpower to be paid under the Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) (“WICA”). Chua Jian Construction and its insurer objected to the assessment, and after a hearing, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dismissed Chua Jian Construction’s objections.

Chua Jian Construction appealed before this court on two grounds. Its counsel Mr Appoo submitted that the Notice of Assessment was a nullity because the application under the WICA was not made within 12 months of the incident as required under s 11(1)(b) of the Act. The circumstances were a little complicated. What transpired was that Zhao made an application under the WICA for an assessment of the compensation which was issued on 24 March 2014 in the sum of $272,500. But at this time, Zhao was not a properly appointed deputy of QGL, an appointment that is not necessarily on a spouse. Any relative or other suitable person can be appointed the deputy of a mentally incapacitated person, as QGL was undoubtedly was (and remained to this day).

Chua Jian Construction’s objections were heard on 19 February 2016 but was adjourned after Zhao’s testimony, to 26 April 2016. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour dismissed Chua Jian Construction’s claim that Zhao did not have to the standing to lodge a claim on behalf of QGL since she was not an appointed deputy when the claim was first made in 2014. She was subsequently appointed QGL’s deputy on 28 July 2015. The assessment was upheld and Chua Jian Construction appealed to the High Court. Before the appeal was heard, the Ministry of Manpower wrote to Chua Jian Construction to inform them that the first Notice of Assessment was issued in error, and would be set aside as a nullity. This was, presumably, consequent upon the Court of Appeal decision in SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner of Labour [2016] 3 SLR 598 (“Starkstrom”), holding that only a properly appointed deputy may commence a claim on behalf of a mentally incapacitated workman.

Zhao was invited to renew her claim and she did. Chua Jian Construction raised the same objection as to Zhao’s lack of standing. It also objected to the claim as a valid claim under WICA because QGL’s incapacity was not an injury in the course of work. The objections were heard by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 25 and 26 January 2017 and dismissed. Chua Jian Construction thus filed the present application before this court to set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.

Mr Appoo made the same arguments as he did before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Mr Jogesh, counsel for Zhao, also made the same arguments he did in the tribunal hearing below.

Mr Appoo is right in saying that the second Notice of Assessment was filed 33 months from the date of the incident, almost three years out of time. Her claim ought to have been made by 20 October 2014. He is also right in saying that the reasons that might justify the Assistant Commissioner for Labour proceeding with the assessment in such cases must be reasonable and sufficient. Counsel submitted that they were not. One of the reasons that might have been...