Uddin Mohammad Zosim v CES Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] SGDC 331
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Parties: Uddin Mohammad Zosim,CES Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd.

Uddin Mohammad Zosim v CES Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd

[2025] SGDC 331

District Court Originating Claim No 1487 of 2023

Uddin Mohammad Zosim

CES Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd.

District Court

Sia Aik Kor

Tort - Negligence - Breach of Duty

Ram Chandra Ramesh (C Ramesh Law Practice) (instructed), Mahendran s/o Mylvaganam (Regency Legal LLP) for the claimant

Charles Phua (PKWA Law Practice LLC) for the defendant.

30 December 2025

Judgment reserved.

District Judge Sia Aik Kor:

1. Uddin Mohammad Zosim (the “Claimant”) was at all material times an employee of CES Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd (the “Defendant”) and was employed by the Defendant to perform general construction work. This is the Claimant’s claim against the Defendant in negligence and for breach of its statutory duties under the Workplace Safety & Health Act 2006 (“WSHA”) in respect of injuries suffered in an accident.

The Claimant’s case

2. On the first day of trial, the Claimant amended his statement of claim and evidence¹ to put the accident as happening on 26 April 2022 instead of 28 April 2022. He claimed that sometime on or about 26 April 2022, he was tasked to bend rebars at a worksite and used a 25M rebar bender to do so. As he was carrying out the task, the rebar broke. As a result, the Claimant was flung about 2 metres away and landed on the formwork metal, suffering injuries as a result.

3. The Claimant claimed that the Defendant was negligent in

• (a) failing to provide a safe system of work by not identifying and eliminating the danger and risks of the work that was being carried out;

• (b) failing to supervise the Claimant adequately while he was performing the work he was tasked to do and failing to have proper coordination of the work;

• (c) failing to provide the Claimant with additional workers to assist the Claimant at the material time given the nature of the work and the height he was working at;

• (d) failing to ensure that the Claimant was fitted with safety protection equipment such as a harness safety or harness belt given the nature of the work;

• (e) failing to ensure that all precautionary measures had been taken before the Claimant carried out the assigned task; and

• (f) failing to assess the risk, threat or hazard posed by not assessing the working conditions, safety equipment and not providing adequate and proper tools for the Claimant to complete the assigned tasks.

4. The Claimant also claimed that the accident was caused by the Defendant’s various breaches of its statutory duties under the WSHA, including

• (a) failing to take any adequate measures necessary to ensure the safety and health of persons at work, contrary to section 12;

• (b) failing to take any or any adequate measures necessary to ensure the safety and health of persons at work, contrary to section 14;

• (c) failing to provide and maintain a work environment which is safe and without risk to the health of the person at work in breach of section 14(a);

• (d) failing to ensure that the person at work is not exposed to hazards arising out of the arrangement, disposal or working of articles or things in the workplace in breach of section 14(c);

• (e) failing to ensure that the person at work has adequate instruction, information, training and supervision as is necessary for the person to perform his work in breach of section 14(e);

• (f) failing to ensure that articles or things kept in the workplace are safe and without risk to every person within those premises, contrary to section 11;

• (g) failing to implement a safety management system for the purpose of ensuring the safety and protecting the health of persons employed in the workplace in contravention of Regulation 8 of the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations;

• (h) failing to provide adequate supervision or structuring the work arrangement between Claimant, relevant supervisor and relevant foreman and/or set of measures to adhere to in performing his tasks as to permit the Claimant to work in such a way which is not in accordance with the generally accepted principles of sound and safe practice as prescribed by the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations;

• (i) failing to promote the safe conduct of the work generally within the workplace; or

• (j) failing to comply with the provisions and regulations of the WSHA.

The Defendant’s case

5. The Defendant claimed that the Claimant was assigned to bend rebars at the worksite using a rebar bender consisting of two short rebars welded together about 10 to 15 centimetres long and a long rebar measuring about 1 to 1.5 metres long.

6. The Defendant claimed in the Defence that when the Defendant’s site supervisor, one Wang Fenguan (“Wang”), inspected the alleged accident scene on 26 April 2022, he did not notice any broken rebars. Instead, Wang noticed some chipping of the precast wall at the base of one of the bent rebars and abrasions on the Claimant’s left forearm. The Claimant declined consulting a doctor and continued to work after receiving first aid treatment from Wang.

7. The Defendant claimed that it had taught the Claimant how to carry out his work task safely and that he had been performing the said work task without incident since he was employed by the Defendant in 2019.

8. The Defendant denied that it was negligent and claimed that the Claimant’s injuries were caused wholly by or contributed to by the Claimant’s own negligence in

• (a) failing to take any safety precautions while carrying out work activities at the worksite;

• (b) failing to keep any or any proper lookout or to have any or any sufficient regard for his own safety while performing his duties at the worksite;

• (c) failing to take any or adequate measures to protect or safeguard himself from exposure to risk of danger and/or injury of which he knew or ought to have known;

• (d) failing to keep a lookout of his surroundings while bending rebars at the worksite

• (e) failing to take any or any sufficient care for his own personal safety; and/or

• (f) failing to exercise common sense or prudence in the circumstances.

9. The Defendant denied that it has breached any common law or statutory duties required of them.

Issues

10. Under section 60(1) of the WSHA, nothing in the Act is to be construed as conferring a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of any contravention, whether by act or omission, of any provision of this Act. As such, there is no basis for any claim on the ground of any breach of the Defendant’s statutory duty under WSHA.

11. In relation to negligence, the four-fold test is outlined in Chen Qiangshi v Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 177 at [125]: (a) the defendant must have owed the claimant a duty of care; (b) the defendant’s conduct must have breached the duty of care by falling below the requisite standard of care; (c) the claimant must have suffered loss; and (d) the defendant’s breach of duty must have been a cause of the claimant’s loss.

12. It was not disputed that the Defendant, being the Claimant’s employer, owed the Claimant a duty of care. As the trial was conducted on a bifurcated basis with trial on responsibility to proceed first with causation and quantum reserved², the issues in the present case were as follows:

• (a) how the accident happened;

• (b) whether there was a breach of the Defendant’s duty of care owed to the Claimant;

• (c) whether the breach had caused the accident; and

• (d) whether there was any contributory fault or responsibility on the part of the Claimant.

How the accident happened

13. Following the Claimant’s amendments to the Statement of Claim and his affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”), it is the Claimant’s case and evidence that he was tasked to bend rebars on 26 April 2022 when the rebar broke. He fell facing up and injured his back³.

14. The Defendant claimed that the Claimant’s evidence was not credible because he had been inconsistent as to the date of the accident and how he fell. The Defendant also argued that the Claimant did not injure his back on 26 April 2022 because he did not complain about his back injury until 9 May 2022 when he sought treatment from Dr Tang Teck Ung at SATA CommHealth Medical Centre (“SATA”).

Date of accident

15. The Defendant highlighted that the Claimant had initially put the date of the accident on 29 April 2022. In the Incident/Accident Investigation and Analysis Report, the Claimant appeared to have stated in his witness statement⁴ that the accident happened on 29 April 2022 and he fell down at 4 p.m. The date/time of the witness statement was also stated to be 29 April 2022 at 4 p.m. However, it was the evidence of Eto Tomharu, Fu Chun (“Eto”), the safety officer from the Defendant, that no investigation was carried out on 26 April 2022⁵ and it was only on 12 May 2022 that he had contacted Ali MD Sakendar (“Ali”), the Defendant’s safety supervisor, to assist with explaining to the Claimant the purpose of the witness statement, after which the Claimant had filled in the form on his own⁶. This meant that even on the Defendant’s case, the date and time of the witness statement was not accurately reflected. The Claimant had also denied penning the date of 29 April 2022, which appears in a different colour ink from the rest of the statement⁷. As such, I did not think much weight could be placed on the date of the accident that was indicated on the form.

16. It would also appear that the Claimant had sought medical attention at the Emergency Department of Tan Tock Seng Hospital (“TTSH”) on 20 May 2022 and was given a referral letter, which stated that he suffered a workplace injury and fell on 29 April 2022. The Claimant therefore appeared to be under the impression that the accident happened on 29 April 2022. However, the maker of this statement was not called and this apparent inconsistency was not put to...