District Judge Kow Keng Siong:
Introduction
DC/DC 735/2019 (“DC 735”) involves a case where a domestic worker sued her former maid agent for misrepresentation and false imprisonment. One unusual feature of this case was that the domestic worker allegedly had to jump from the third level of a HDB unit in order to escape from her false imprisonment. As a result of the jump, the domestic worker suffered very serious injuries.
This case caught the attention of non-governmental organisations (which, among others, funded DC 735) and a community blogging platform (which wrote about the case). The agent, who was on financial assistance, denied the claims. Her defence was funded by Legal Aid.
Exploitation and false imprisonment of domestic workers are taken seriously by our Courts. Where domestic workers make serious allegations against their employers and/or agents, these will be carefully scrutinised by the Courts to ensure that factual findings are based on credible and reliable evidence and that justice is done.
At the end of the trial, I dismissed DC 735. Before explaining my decision, here are the brief facts of this case.
Brief facts
On 5 March 2016, the Plaintiff (an Indonesian) came to Singapore to work as a domestic worker for one Sharifah. This employment was arranged through the Defendant and an employment agent in Indonesia.
A few days into the employment, Sharifah complained to the Defendant about the Plaintiff’s work attitude. In turn, the Plaintiff complained to the Defendant that she lacked proper food and rest, constantly felt fatigued, and was scolded by Sharifah. The Plaintiff wanted to change her employer.
On 21 March 2016, after attempts to persuade the Plaintiff to change her mind had failed, the Defendant brought the Plaintiff to her employment agency at Joo Chiat Complex (“the Office”). Later that evening, the Defendant brought the Plaintiff to her home – a one-room rental HDB unit located on the third level (“the Flat”). At the material time, the Defendant’s daughter and Fitriya (another domestic worker waiting for a transfer of employer) were also residing in the Flat.
For the next three days, the Defendant would bring the Plaintiff to the Office during the day, and back to the Flat to stay at night.
On 24 March 2016 at about 11 am, the Plaintiff jumped from the kitchen window of the Flat. She was conveyed to Changi General Hospital (“CGH”) and found to have suffered multiple fractures, abrasions and liver laceration from the fall. After her discharge from CGH, the Plaintiff stayed with the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (“HOME”) to recuperate from her injuries.
The misrepresentation claim
Parties’ pleaded case
Dissatisfied with her employment under Sharifah, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation. The case for both parties regarding the Plaintiff’s misrepresentation claim are summarised below:
| |
|
|
|
| | Plaintiff’s case | Defendant’s case |
| (a) | The Defendant had made the following false representations to the Plaintiff in connection with the latter’s employment: | |
| (i) | That the Defendant had a valid maid agency license (“First Representation”). | The Defendant accepted that she had operated a maid agency without a valid license at the material time. The Defendant however denied having made the First Representation. |
| (ii) | That the Defendant would process all arrangements necessary for the Plaintiff to obtain employment as a domestic worker in Singapore (“Second Representation”). | The Defendant denied having made the Second Representation. In any event, the alleged representation was not false because the Defendant had secured for the Plaintiff a valid work permit, a valid employment contract and an employer duly approved by the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”). |
| (iii) | That the Defendant would assist the Plaintiff to obtain employment in a “safe working environment” (“Third Representation”) and “with a responsible employer” (“Fourth Representation”). These two representations were false as Sharifah was verbally abusive. Furthermore, the Defendant “had failed to perform the necessary checks to ensure that the Plaintiff obtained employment in a safe working environment and/or with a responsible employer who could comply with the requisite law and regulations and/or safety arrangements/agreement”. | The Defendant denied having made the Third and Fourth Representations. |
| (b) | The Defendant – (i) had made the First, Second and Third Representations fraudulently and/or negligently, and (ii) had made the Fourth Representation negligently. | Disputed by the Defendant. |
| (c) | The Plaintiff was induced by the false representations – (i) to agree to work for Sharifah and (ii) to the deduction of $450 monthly, for seven months, from her salary pursuant to an agreement between the Plaintiff and the maid agent in Indonesia (“Agency Contract”). | Disputed by the Defendant. |
| (d) | But for the Third Representation which turned out to be false, the Plaintiff – (i) would not have worked for Sharifah and (ii) could have completed at least a two-year contract with another suitably prequalified employer. | Disputed by the Defendant. |
Applicable legal principles
To succeed on her misrepresentation claim, the Plaintiff must prove the following: First, the Defendant had made the alleged representations and that they were false (“False Representation Element”). Second, the Defendant had intended the Plaintiff to act upon these representations (“Inducement Element”). Third, the Plaintiff did act upon the representations (“Reliance Element”). Next, the Plaintiff had suffered damage as a result (“Damage Element”). Finally, the Plaintiff must also prove the “Mental Element”: In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant had made the representations knowing that they were false, or without belief in their truth, or recklessly, not caring whether they were true or false. As for negligent misrepresentation, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant owed her a duty of care which was breached. Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 at [14]; Chu Said Thong v Vision Law LLC [2014] 4 SLR 375 at [114] – [125].
I found that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the above elements which were necessary to make out a case of misrepresentation. I will now elaborate my reasons for coming to such a finding.
The Plaintiff had failed to provide satisfactory evidence to prove that the alleged representations had been made
In my judgement, the Plaintiff had failed to provide satisfactory evidence to prove that the Defendant had made the alleged representations.
Despite the fact that the alleged representations were central to her entire misrepresentation claim, the Plaintiff astonishingly did not adduce any evidence about them as part of her case – whether in her Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (“AEIC”) or her examination-in-chief (“EIC”).
The Plaintiff referred to these representations only (1) when the Defendant’s counsel, Mr Singh, put to her that they had not been made and (2) in her re-examination. Even then, the Plaintiff’s evidence regarding the representations was not compelling. The Plaintiff’s responses regarding the alleged representations were conflicting and confusing. This was despite repeated attempts, including by her own counsel, Ms Low, to simplify the questions posed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s evidence as to the representations consisted of bare assertions and were devoid of details. She did not testify where, when, how and how the Defendant had allegedly made them. In fact, when she was probed on the Fourth Representation, the Plaintiff testified that she could not remember anything about it. The only evidence volunteered by the Plaintiff that remotely came close to the alleged representations was when she testified that the Defendant had told her at the Office that, “I will deploy you in (sic) this employer, I hope that you will be able to adjust yourself there”. No explanation was provided, either by the Plaintiff or in closing submissions, as to why she had such great difficulty in clearly asserting that the Defendant did in fact make the representations.
It was implausible that the Defendant could have made the alleged representations based on the Plaintiff’s case theory
In fact, based on the Plaintiff’s own evidence, (1) she had very limited interactions with the Defendant before starting to work for Sharifah and (2) the Defendant did not make the alleged representations to her. According to the Plaintiff – She did not communicate with the Defendant before arriving in Singapore. After arriving in Singapore, the Plaintiff was picked up by the Defendant’s brother from the airport and brought to his apartment. There, she was given some basic training on work as a domestic worker. The Plaintiff did not communicate with the Defendant during this period. The first time that the Plaintiff communicated with the Defendant was when she was placed in Sharifah’s care. This took place at the Office, shortly before Sharifah arrived to fetch the Plaintiff to her (Sharifah’s) home. According to the Plaintiff, apart from informing her that – she would be working for Sharifah, her employment contract was for two years, deductions would be made from her salary pursuant to the Agency Contract, and she should call her (the Defendant) if she were to encounter any problem, the Defendant did not say anything else to her before she was brought to Sharifah’s home.
The Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant had made the alleged representations simply did not gel with her own narrative of what had transpired before she commenced working for Sharifah.
The Plaintiff had sought to...
