Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTan Lee Meng J
Judgment Date30 August 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] SGHC 138
Date30 August 2007
Subject MatterEmployment Law,Administrative Law,Whether Commissioner for Labour's decision irrational or unreasonable,Whether decision of Commissioner for Labour refusing to reinstate workmen's compensation claim irrational or unreasonable,Certiorari and mandamus,Whether leave for judicial review should be granted,Colleague in same accident awarded compensation,Commissioner for labour,Employee applying to reinstate claim for workmen's compensation,Section 11(4) Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed),Definition of "reasonable cause" for late submission of compensation claim,Commissioner for Labour finding no reasonable cause for late submission,Remedies
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 2183 of 2006
Published date31 August 2007
Defendant CounselJeffrey Chan Wah Teck and Kevin Lim (Attorney-General's Chambers)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselRamasamy Chettiar (ACIES Law Corporation)

30 August 2007

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 The applicant, Mr Pang Chen Suan (“Pang”), sought leave to apply for the following orders:

(a) That the Plaintiff be granted leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Learned Commissioner for Labour made on the 7th day of September 2006 with respect to the aforesaid Labour Case No 0401525D wherein the Learned Commissioner for Labour decided that the Plaintiff was barred from claiming his Workmen Compensation and refusing to assess the compensation of the Plaintiff under the Workmen Compensation[’s]Act (Cap 354).

(b) That the Plaintiff be granted leave to apply for an Order of Mandamus directing the Learned Commissioner to reinstate the aforesaid case and to assess the Plaintiff’s claim under the Workmen Compensation[’s] Act (Cap 354).

2 I dismissed the application for leave for judicial review and now set out the reasons for my decision.

Background

3 Pang, now 41 years old, was formerly employed as a supervisor by D-Sign Advertising (“D-Sign”), which was in the business of making signboards. On 13 January 2004, an explosion occurred in D-Sign’s factory at the Toa Payoh Industrial Park while one of D-Sign’s employees was carrying out hot works with a gas cylinder (“the accident”). Pang’s employer and three other persons died in the accident. Several other persons, including Pang, were injured.

4 Pang applied for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). However, he withdrew his claim for compensation under the Act on 17 August 2004 in order to pursue a claim for damages against his former employer under the common law. On 27 December 2004, Pang commenced a common law action against D-Sign. The validity of the writ was once extended.

5 At the Coroner’s Inquiry into the death of the persons as a result of the accident in D-Sign’s factory, the State Coroner recorded a verdict of misadventure and went on to say that the inquiry showed how important it was for oxygen tank manufacturers to comply with blow down procedures when installing oxygen into gas tanks to rectify any contamination. Apparently, other remarks by the State Coroner also made it an uphill task for Pang to succeed in his common law action against D-Sign. Furthermore, D-Sign’s insurers, NTUC Income Insurers, denied liability for the consequences of the accident on the ground that the policy did not cover the carrying out of hot works in D-Sign’s factory. In view of these developments, Pang allowed his writ against D-Sign to lapse on 20 January 2006.

6 Four months later on 30 April 2006, Pang applied to the Commissioner for Labour (“COL”) to “reinstate” his claim for workmen’s compensation. As more than one year and three months had passed by since the accident occurred, Pang had a hurdle to cross before his claim could be reconsidered by the COL because s 11(1) of the Act provides as follows:

11. (1) Except as provided in this section, proceedings for the recovery of compensation for an injury under this Act shall not be maintainable unless –

….

(b) a claim for compensation with respect to that accident has been made within one year from the happening of the accident causing the injury, or, in the case of death, within one year from the date of the death.

[emphasis added]

7 Where a claim has been made more than a year after the accident that caused the injury in respect of which a claim for workmen’s compensation is made, s 11(4) of the Act provides as follows:

The failure to make a claim within the period specified in subsection (1) shall not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings if it is found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, absence from Singapore or other reasonable cause.

[emphasis added]

8 On 3 May 2006, the COL informed Pang that he was precluded from making a claim so late in the day unless he was able to show that he had “reasonable cause” for the late submission.

9 On 10 July 2006, Pang’s counsel, Mr Ramasamy Chettiar, wrote to the COL to explain that Pang had sought to have his claim for workmen’s compensation “reinstated” because he had abandoned his common law claim against his former employer, who did not have insurance cover with respect to the accident.

10 On 7 September 2006, the COL informed Pang that the reasons furnished by him could not be accepted as a “reasonable cause” for the late submission of his claim (“the decision”).

11 On 22 November 2006, Pang commenced the present proceedings against the COL for a quashing order and an order for mandamus.

Whether leave should be given

12 In Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR 644 (“Lai Swee Lin Linda”), L P Thean JA, who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal, explained at [23] that the requirement of leave to apply for orders such as the ones being sought by Pang is intended to be a means of filtering out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage so as to prevent a wasteful use of judicial time and to protect public bodies from harassment, whether intentional or otherwise. The test for granting leave for judicial review was considered by the Court of Appeal in Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors v Minister for Information and the Arts [1996] 1 SLR 609 (“Chan Hiang Leng Colin”). In that case, Karthigesu JA, who delivered the judgment of the court, held at [25] that what is required “is not a prima facie case, but a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion” and if the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • AXY and others v Comptroller of Income Tax (Attorney-General, intervener)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Marzo 2017
    ...prospect of success (see eg, Kang Ngah Wei v Commander of Traffic Police [2002] 1 SLR(R) 14; Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour [2007] 4 SLR(R) 557). The Interface between Judicial Review and the EOI In framing their arguments before me, there was some disagreement between the parties......
  • Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 28 Mayo 2008
    ...of the Commissioner’s decision, but the judge below (“the Judge”) refused to grant leave (see Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour [2007] 4 SLR 557). The workman appealed to this court. At the conclusion of the hearing, we allowed the appeal. We now give our full reasons for allowing th......
  • Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 28 Mayo 2008
    ...of the Commissioner’s decision, but the judge below (“the Judge”) refused to grant leave (see Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour [2007] 4 SLR 557). The workman appealed to this court. At the conclusion of the hearing, we allowed the appeal. We now give our full reasons for allowing th......

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