Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd v China Insurance Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 08 October 1977
• Date: 08 October 1977
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 23 of 1973
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd

Plaintiff

and

China Insurance Co Ltd

Defendant

[1977] SGCA 11

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Choor Singh J

and

D C D'Cotta J

Civil Appeal No 23 of 1973

Court of Appeal

Insurance–General principles–Subrogation–Indemnity–Workman's compensation paid by insurer of employer of deceased workman–Whether insurer entitled to be indemnified by main contractor–Section 20 (b) Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 130, 1970 Rev Ed)–Tort–Occupier's liability–Duty of care–Workman electrocuted by live electric cable–Compensation paid by insurer of employer of deceased workman–Whether insurer entitled to be indemnified by occupier by right of subrogation–Section 20 (b)Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 130, 1970 Rev Ed)

The respondent insurance company paid on behalf of their insured company in respect of the death of the insured company's workman on a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 130, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the Workmen's Compensation Act”). The workman had been electrocuted by a live electric cable when working on a construction site. The appellant was the main contractor for the project while the insured company was a subcontractor. The respondent sought recovery of the moneys from the main contractor on the ground that it was entitled to be indemnified by it by right of subrogation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The High Court judge ordered the contractor to pay the insurance company the sum claimed, and the contractor appealed. It contended that (a) since the insurance company claimed by right of subrogation, the proper plaintiff was the insured company; (b) the trial judge had erred in finding that the contractor owed a duty of care to the deceased workman to warn him of the alleged concealed danger of the electric cable; (c) the deceased workman was partly to blame for the accident; and (d) that the insurance company had failed to adduce any evidence that the payment by it on behalf of its insured was justified under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Pursuant to s 20 (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the insurance company was “the person by whom the compensation was paid”, and was therefore entitled to be indemnified under s 20 (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This right to be indemnified included the right to sue in its own name: at [6].

(2) The main contractor knew or should have known that by allowing cables carrying electricity to lie on the ground across the path used by workmen it was creating a concealed danger to all workmen using that path and should have taken appropriate measures to warn them of such danger. As it failed to do so it was clearly in breach of its duty to the deceased who as a licensee was entitled to be warned of such concealed danger: at [7].

(3) On the facts, there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased: at [8].

(4) There was evidence on record to show that the claim made to the insurance company was justified on the facts, and moreover, that the claim was accepted by the deceased's employer and by the insurance company. This was sufficient evidence to shift the...