Comfort Management v PP: Employing Foreign Worker & Strict Liability Offence
Comfort Management Pte Ltd appealed against its conviction for violating s 5(3) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A) by employing a foreign worker, Krishnan Rajangam, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his work permit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the company had authorized Krishnan to drive company vehicles outside construction sites, which was a breach of his work permit conditions. The court found that the offense was one of strict liability, and the company failed to prove it had taken due care and attention to prevent the breach.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Comfort Management Pte Ltd was convicted for violating the Employment of Foreign Workers Act by allowing a foreign worker to drive outside construction sites. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the offense a strict liability.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction Upheld | Won | G Kannan of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| COMFORT MANAGEMENT PTE LTD | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| G Kannan | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Chong Boon | Albert Teo & Lim |
4. Facts
- Comfort Management Pte Ltd employed Krishnan Rajangam, an Indian national, as a building electrician.
- Krishnan's work permit stipulated that he was to be engaged only in construction activities and not driving outside construction sites.
- The company authorized Krishnan to drive company vehicles outside construction sites to transport work equipment and co-workers.
- The company was charged with employing Krishnan otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his work permit, violating s 5(3) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act.
- The trial judge convicted the company, and imposed a fine of $3,500.
- The company appealed against its conviction, arguing that the interpretation of condition 2(d) was wrong and that it did not possess the requisite mens rea for the offence.
5. Formal Citations
- Comfort Management Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor, MA 200/2002, [2003] SGHC 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Krishnan Rajangam employed by Comfort Management Pte Ltd | |
| Krishnan Rajangam's employment with Comfort Management Pte Ltd ends | |
| Case MA 200/2002 filed | |
| High Court dismisses the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether employing a foreign worker otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of the work permit is a strict liability offence
- Outcome: The court held that s 5(3) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act is a strict liability offence.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of Condition 2(d) of the Work Permit
- Outcome: The court interpreted condition 2(d) as prohibiting driving outside construction sites in the course of employment.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Reversal of fine
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Employment of Foreign Workers Act s 5(3)
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Offences
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forward Food Management Pte Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 40 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the interpretation of executive orders and conditions (including work permits) are the same as those applied in the interpretation of primary legislation and for principles to be applied in interpreting penal statutory provisions. |
| Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a purposive interpretation should be adopted over a literal interpretation that does not support the purpose and object of the written law. |
| Kenneth Nicholas v PP | N/A | Yes | [MA/210/2002] | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a purposive interpretation should be adopted over a literal interpretation that does not support the purpose and object of the written law. |
| Maunsell v Olins & Anor | N/A | Yes | [1975] 1 All ER 16 | N/A | Cited for the principle that in statutes dealing with ordinary people in their everyday lives, the language is presumed to be used in its primary ordinary sense. |
| Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions | N/A | Yes | [1962] AC 635 | N/A | Cited for the principle that if a word is capable of one meaning only, then the courts should not impose another meaning, even if the latter, in the opinion of the courts, will better promote the statutory purpose. |
| PP v Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan | N/A | Yes | [MA/15/2002] | Singapore | Cited for the principle that due weight should be given to the judge’s assessment of the veracity or credibility of witnesses, given that she has the benefit of observing their demeanour. |
| Jimina Jacee d/o CD Athananasius v PP | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that due weight should be given to the judge’s assessment of the veracity or credibility of witnesses, given that she has the benefit of observing their demeanour. |
| Sweet v Parsley | N/A | Yes | [1970] AC 132 | N/A | Established the approach to be applied in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability. |
| Gammon Ltd v AG of Hong Kong | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 AC 1 | Hong Kong | Established the approach to be applied in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability. |
| Chng Wei Meng v PP | N/A | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 595 | Singapore | Held that since the rationale behind strict liability offences is to encourage greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act, this implies that an accused is entitled to be acquitted if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that he has taken due care and attention to comply with the statutory requirements. |
| Tan Khee Wan Iris v PP | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Held that since the rationale behind strict liability offences is to encourage greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act, this implies that an accused is entitled to be acquitted if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that he has taken due care and attention to comply with the statutory requirements. |
| MV Balakrishnan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 CLAS News 357 | Singapore | Held that since the rationale behind strict liability offences is to encourage greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act, this implies that an accused is entitled to be acquitted if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that he has taken due care and attention to comply with the statutory requirements. |
| Tan Cheng Kwee v PP | N/A | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 390 | Singapore | Held that since the rationale behind strict liability offences is to encourage greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act, this implies that an accused is entitled to be acquitted if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that he has taken due care and attention to comply with the statutory requirements. |
| M V Balakrishnan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 CLAS News 257 | Singapore | Held that since the rationale behind strict liability offences is to encourage greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act, this implies that an accused is entitled to be acquitted if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that he has taken due care and attention to comply with the statutory requirements. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A) | Singapore |
| Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Employment of Foreign Workers Act
- Work Permit
- Strict Liability
- Condition 2(d)
- Non-Traditional Source Workers
- Purposive Interpretation
- Mens Rea
15.2 Keywords
- Foreign Worker
- Work Permit
- Strict Liability
- Employment of Foreign Workers Act
- Singapore
- Construction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act | 95 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 70 |
| Employment Law | 60 |
| Immigration | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Immigration Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Regulatory Offences