Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd

JudgeG P Selvam J
Judgment Date16 May 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] SGHC 96
Citation[2001] SGHC 96
Defendant CounselPrasanna Prabhakaran (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners)
Published date07 November 2003
Plaintiff CounselPerumal Athitham (Yeo Perumal Mohideen & Partners)
Date16 May 2001
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 7004 of
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether leave to appeal should be granted,Whether plaintiff entitled to appeal as of right,Effect of failure to combine appeal against leave to appeal with appeal against order for security,Security,When security for costs ordered,Appeals,Civil Procedure,Principles applicable,Claim exceeding $50,000,Costs

:

The claim and the appeal

This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the district judge ordering the plaintiff to furnish security for costs in the sum of $5,000. This is a personal injury case.

The plaintiff is an Indian national and a construction worker.
On 2 January 1999 he suffered injuries to his spine and knee. He says that at that time he was engaged in work relating to the construction of a road within Changi Airport. On that date he was indisputably working for the defendants.

He brought this action in the subordinate courts seeking damages.
Before this he had made a claim under the Workmen`s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Ed). The Commissioner of Labour issued a notice of assessment on 21 January 2000. Later the plaintiff changed his mind and withdrew his claim under the Workmen`s Compensation Act and filed this action.

The statement of claim asserted that the plaintiff and another worker, while at work, were standing on a staging.
The legs of the staging were fitted with casters (swivel wheels). Two other co-workers pushed the staging to the next work spot while the plaintiff and his co-worker remained on the staging. While the staging was being pushed one of the casters hit a snag in the floor. The caster came off and the staging tilted to one side. In the result the plaintiff lost his balance and fell to the ground. The staging toppled on him. Consequently he suffered injuries. He says that the defendants were negligent. He made the alternative or additive assertion that the defendants were in breach of the Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Ed) and the Factories (Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction) Regulations (Cap 104, Rg 8, 1999 Ed).

At this point I must advert to the `Detailed Description of Accident` set out in the `Notice of Accident` submitted by the defendant under the Workmen`s Compensation Act and the Workmen`s Compensation Regulations (Cap 354, Rg 1, 1990 Ed).
I reproduce it in an edited form to correct the grammar:

The said worker was deploy [ sic] to open the formwork at mechanical room to erect the scaffolding for access to work. While climbing up the scaffolding to working platform, he slipped and fell and his right leg was injured.



The notice further said that the plaintiff `Carried out general construction work as instructed by site foreman ` (emphasis is added).
At the end of the Notice of Accident, a director of the defendants certified that the information given in the notice `is correct to the best of my knowledge`.

In the defence filed in this action the defendants pleaded allegations incongruent with the contents of the Notice of Accident.
The defence admitted that the stage was moved while the plaintiff was on the stage. The following admission in the notice is omitted from the defence: `While climbing up the scaffolding to working platform, he slipped and fell`. Furthermore, there is no positive case in respect of the staging hitting the snag on the floor.

The discrepancy in the notice and the defence augurs ill for the defendants.
Prima facie, the plaintiff is likely to recover substantial damages even as a division of liability. There is no defence to the cause of action. The likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding is very strong. Such being the case, the question of security for costs becomes an unjust exercise intended to stifle a strong prima facie claim simply because the plaintiff is a foreigner without an address within the jurisdiction. Its purpose effectively is to deny justice to the plaintiff.

When the order for security was made the plaintiff wanted to appeal against the order.
However, he was advised that he required leave to appeal. He then applied for leave. He was denied leave. He has appealed against the refusal.

The law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd and another application
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 Abril 2002
    ...in the present instance. Following Augustine v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR 767 and Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd [2001] 3 SLR 400, in the case of taxation of bills of costs, as the present case related to, the ‘amount in dispute’ was not the substantive claim in the act......
  • Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd and another application
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 Abril 2002
    ...in the present instance. Following Augustine v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR 767 and Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd [2001] 3 SLR 400, in the case of taxation of bills of costs, as the present case related to, the ‘amount in dispute’ was not the substantive claim in the act......
  • IW v IX
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 13 Octubre 2005
    ...test of no realistic prospect of success. Although in the later High Court case of Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd [2001] 3 SLR 400, G P Selvam J had referred to the test enunciated in Smith v Cosworth, the judge had stated the test in a somewhat different form, namely (......
  • Meyer Erwin v Lerner Brian and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 Septiembre 2006
    ...for the defendant’s costs of the action or other proceeding as it thinks just. 16 In Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd [2001] 3 SLR 400 at [12], G P Selvam J stated the principles which govern the exercise of the power to order security as (1) Security will not be ordered ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2001, December 2001
    • 1 Diciembre 2001
    ...Whether leave to appeal is necessary 6.1 In Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd[2001] 3 SLR 400, the learned Justice G P Selvam held that an appeal from the decision to grant security for costs of $5,000 could proceed as of right even though s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of J......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 Diciembre 2006
    ...7.5 The test in Smith v Cosworth was referred to by G P Selvam J in the case of Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd[2001] 3 SLR 400. However, the Court of Appeal in IW v IX noted that the judge had stated the test in a somewhat different form, namely, ‘whether the appeal is ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT