Manickam Sankar v Selvaraj Madhavan (trading as MKN Construction & Engineering) and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 99
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 177 of 2011
• Year: 2012
• Published date: 16 May 2012
• Hearing Date: 13 February 2012,18 April 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: R Kalamohan and K S Elavarasi (Kalamohan & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Joo Seng and Chong Kuan Keong (Chong Chia & Lim LLC)
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 99

Chan Seng Onn J:Introduction

This was an action by Manickam Sankar (“the plaintiff”) against his former employer, Selvaraj Madhavan (trading as MKN Construction & Engineering) (“Madhavan”), as the first defendant and Trans Equatorial Engineering Pte Ltd (“TEE”) as the second defendant. The plaintiff instituted his action on 16 March 2011, claiming that both defendants were liable for his fall from the area between the false ceiling of the first storey and the floor slab of the second storey of Terminal 1, Changi Airport (“the Ceiling Space”) which caused him to suffer various injuries.

TEE was the main contractor in a project for the “Design, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of VAV Boxes and Associated Control and Electrical Works in T1 and T2, Singapore Changi Airport” (“the Project”). The project owner was the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (“CAAS”).

Madhavan failed to enter an appearance although the writ of summons was served on him by way of personal service on 19 March 2011. Consequently, interlocutory judgment in default of appearance was entered against him by the plaintiff on 29 March 2011.

The plaintiff’s action against TEE was bifurcated on 29 June 2011.

The evidenceThe plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff was the sole witness called in support of his case. His account in his Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (“AEIC”) of the events leading up to the fall was as follows¹:4On the night of 19.05.2009, I was working at Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 1. As I did not know the way to Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 1, I met one Kannan and followed him. We reached the Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 1 at or about 11.00pm. As work was to start at 1.00am, Kannan and I went to a warehouse to pick up some equipment (air-conditioner spare parts) before going to Terminal 1. Upon reaching Terminal 1, as there was still time to spare, the other workers and I were sitting around the bus terminal and drinking coffee.5A group of 10 workers including me were involved in carrying out the works at the material time. Rex [a supervisor, one Selvaraj Arun Johansonrex (“Rex”)] came to the spot and told all the workers including me to be at the work area by [11.50pm] as work had to start at [midnight]. Accordingly all the other workers and I walked to the work area.At [11.55pm] all the workers including myself were given safety belts without any explanation. We were not issued with other safety equipment like safety helmets. Even the safety shoes I was wearing on the day of the accident was my own. Thereafter, Rex told us to follow Kannan and go up and start work.Rex did not do or say anything else. We did not have any safety briefing that day.6We were working on the staging of the said premises which is about 12 metres high. We were fixing the air-conditioner. As such, each of the workers including myself had carried a ladder to the work area.Rex did not climb the ladder.7When I was mounting the ladder, I had already worn my safety belt as I had already commenced work.The area was not well lit and lighting was insufficient for the workers including myself to differentiate between the catwalks and the false ceiling (“ceiling panels”).Further, approximately every 3 feet of the work area was covered with huge railings. There was no space for the other workers and myself to walk and do our work. Thus, we had to crawl on our bellies to move from one point to the other. Furthermore,there was nowhere for the workers including myself to anchor our safety harness while we were crawling and doing our work.8Kannan was the first person to crawl to the other side of the work area. Thereafter, two other workers carried equipment and crawled to the other side of the work area after Kannan. I was the next worker who carried equipment and crawled to the other side of the work area. After passing the equipment to Kannan, the two other workers and I turned around to crawl back to the other side of the work area.I was the first worker to crawl back.9On my way back,the staging gave way and I fell about 78 to 80 feet to the ground and was injured as a result. At the time of the accident I weighed about 106 kilograms and was about 6 feet tall. ...

[emphasis added in italics and bold italics]

When the plaintiff stated “On the night of 19.05.2009...” at para 4 of his AEIC, this was clearly a mistake because the plaintiff reached Changi Airport on the night of 18 May 2009 and the accident (ie, the fall from the Ceiling Space) occurred in the early hours of 19 May 2009. Nothing turned on this.

The plaintiff’s account in his AEIC of what happened was elaborated upon in oral evidence.

Before the plaintiff went up the ladder to the Ceiling Space

The plaintiff is an Indian national. Before he arrived in Singapore sometime in March or April 2009², he was working, and had always been working, as a marketing executive in the finance sector in India³. This job did not require him to wear a safety harness⁴.

Sometime in March or April 2009, the plaintiff attended a “Construction Safety Orientation Course for Workers (General Trade)” which was conducted in Singapore by an entity called “Armstrong Health and Safety Training Providers” (see Plaintiff’s Bundle of Documents (“PB”) at p 50) (“the Safety Course”)⁵. The plaintiff was taught how to wear a safety harness and how to hook the safety harness to metal railings⁶. However, the Safety Course did not teach him how to hook the safety harness to objects which were larger than the opening of the hook⁷. I demonstrated to the plaintiff how the safety harness could be hooked to such objects by looping the rope around the object and then attaching the hook to the rope itself (“loop-hooking”). The plaintiff stated that he was not taught this method of hooking the safety harness at the Safety Course, and that he had not personally thought about this method before⁸. Furthermore, during the Safety Course he was only told that the safety harness should be hooked when he was at the place where the work proper was being carried out. He was not told that he should also hook the harness when he was moving around⁹.

On 18 May 2009, Madhavan instructed the plaintiff to report for work at Changi Airport for “air-con renovation”¹⁰. The plaintiff arrived at Changi Airport at about 11pm on 18 May 2009. At about 11.30pm, Rex told him and some other workers to be at the work area by 11.50pm because work would start at midnight¹¹. When the plaintiff reached the work area at Terminal 1, he saw two Chinese men. No briefing was given by these two men to the workers¹². The ten workers, including the plaintiff, were told that the works would commence at midnight and that they should wear their safety harnesses¹³. Further, they were told that it was getting late and that they should commence work¹⁴. Rex fixed the safety harness to the plaintiff because the latter did not know how to do so¹⁵.

The safety harness which TEE produced at trial was not of the same type as the safety harness which was in fact provided to the plaintiff on 18 May 2009¹⁶. The safety harness which was supplied to him had hooks with a gap of about 4cm. This was significantly smaller than the hooks of the safety harness which was produced in court (which had a gap of about 7cm)¹⁷.

Before the plaintiff went up the ladder to the Ceiling Space, he was not shown any diagrams or photos of the Ceiling Space or of the particular area in the Ceiling Space where he would be working that night¹⁸. He was also not told how to hook the safety harness¹⁹. Rex told the plaintiff to follow one Ramanujan Kamalakkannan (“Kannan”). The plaintiff, Kannan and another pair of workers then went up the ladder²⁰. Rex remained at the foot of the ladder on the first storey and was supposed to pass things to the workers, who would then bring the things up to the Ceiling Space²¹. When cross-examined, the plaintiff maintained that Rex was not in the Ceiling Space when the accident occurred because Rex was on the ground level near the ladder²².

Events occurring in the Ceiling Space

At the top of the ladder, the plaintiff and the other workers stepped onto a catwalk (see, for example, p 54 Second Defendant’s Bundle of Documents (“SDBD”))²³. Each worker was carrying a plank to be carried to the worksite. The workers then walked along the catwalk to the area where some old VAV boxes were located (see red arrows at SDBB p 41)²⁴. However, at some parts the workers had to stoop or crawl because there were obstructions. The plaintiff was following Kannan.

There were fluorescent tubes placed every 7 or 8 feet “within some gaps” in the Ceiling Space (see, for example, p 54 SDBD). However, it was dark at the place where the plaintiff fell²⁵. That area was not bright and not clear, but the plaintiff could see his own feet²⁶.

At this juncture, it is necessary to set out the following diagram of the immediate vicinity of where the fall occurred²⁷:The part marked “Ceiling Panels” in the diagram was the area from which the plaintiff fell. Photos of this area can be found at pp 47–51 SDBD.

Once the workers (including the plaintiff) reached A, they left the planks there because there were some “stage works” which were going to be carried out in that area²⁸. Kannan had a fluorescent light (chemically operated) in his hand, whereas the plaintiff did not have a light²⁹. Kannan was the first person to cross from A to B, and Kannan had told the plaintiff to follow the route which he (Kannan) took. However, Kannan did not tell the plaintiff of the location of the ceiling panels and that he should not step on them³⁰.

Once Kannan had reached B, he stopped there and motioned for the three other workers (including the plaintiff) to bring the planks over³¹. Kannan and the other two workers did not hook their safety belts to any external objects when they were crossing from A to B³². The...