Magaforce Construction v Khamso Wirat: Workmen's Compensation for Sub-Subcontractor's Employee Injured in Traffic Accident

In Magaforce Construction v Khamso Wirat and Others, the High Court of Singapore heard an originating motion by Magaforce Construction seeking to reverse an order by the Commissioner of Labour that Magaforce pay compensation to Khamso Wirat, an employee injured in a traffic accident. Magaforce argued that Nisshin Engineering Pte Ltd, Eng Keong Pte Ltd, and Tenet Insurance Co Ltd should also be liable. The court, presided over by Woo Bih Li J, dismissed the application, finding that Section 17(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act applied, and Nisshin was not the principal of Khamso.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Magaforce Construction was ordered to compensate Khamso Wirat, an employee of a sub-subcontractor, for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. The court determined whether the main contractor or subcontractor was liable.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Magaforce ConstructionApplicantCorporationApplication dismissedLostGopinath Pillai
Khamso WiratRespondentIndividualOrder for compensation against Magaforce standsWon
Nisshin Engineering Pte LtdRespondentCorporationNot liable for compensationNeutral
Eng Keong Pte LtdRespondentCorporationNot liable for compensationNeutralM P Rai
Tenet Insurance Co LtdRespondentCorporationNot liable for compensationNeutralM P Rai

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gopinath PillaiTan Peng Chin LLC
M P RaiCooma and Rai

4. Facts

  1. Khamso Wirat, an employee of Magaforce Construction, was injured in a traffic accident while in a lorry.
  2. The accident occurred when a car collided with the lorry Khamso was in.
  3. Magaforce Construction supplied labour to Nisshin Engineering Pte Ltd.
  4. Eng Keong Pte Ltd was the main contractor for a project where the accident occurred.
  5. Tenet Insurance Co Ltd issued a workmen’s compensation policy to Eng Keong.
  6. The Commissioner of Labour ordered Magaforce to pay Khamso $156,130.20 in compensation.
  7. The lorry was owned by Nisshin Engineering Pte Ltd and driven by its employee.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Magaforce Construction v Khamso Wirat and Others, OM 45/2004, [2005] SGHC 186

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Khamso Wirat injured in a traffic accident
Commissioner of Labour orders Magaforce to pay Khamso $156,130.20 as compensation
Order of the Commissioner for Labour made
Originating Motion No 45 of 2004 filed in the High Court
Application dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Liability of Principal for Workmen's Compensation
    • Outcome: The court held that Nisshin was not the principal of Khamso under s 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Definition of 'Place' under s 17(5) of Workmen's Compensation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that a lorry travelling on the road does not constitute a 'place' under s 17(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Reversal of the Commissioner of Labour's order
  2. Order that Nisshin, Eng Keong, and Tenet be liable to compensate Khamso

9. Cause of Actions

  • Workmen's Compensation Claim

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Insurance Law

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
QBE (International) Ltd v Julaiha Bee BeeN/AYes[1992] 1 SLR 406SingaporeCited regarding the mode of transport having to be operated by or on behalf of the employer or by some other person pursuant to arrangements made with the employer, but found not to assist the submission as it involved the interpretation of s 3(2) and not s 17(5).
Andrews v Andrews and MearsCourt of AppealYes[1908] 2 KB 567England and WalesCited regarding whether a street is considered 'premises' where work is executed under the UK Workmen's Compensation Act 1906. The court found the reasoning helpful but not a direct authority.
Leung Chack v Asia Insurance Co LtdHong Kong Court of AppealYes[1991] 2 HKLR 496Hong KongCited for the principle that legislation should not be taken to impose financial liability on any person unless it does so in clear and unambiguous terms.
State Mines Control Authority v Government Insurance Office of New South WalesN/AYes(1964) 65 SR (NSW) 258New South WalesCited with approval regarding the language of the policy determining the extent of the indemnity.
Employers’ Mutual Indemnity Association Ltd v K B Hutcherson Pty LtdN/AYes[1976] 2 NSWLR 302New South WalesCited regarding the language of the policy determining the extent of the indemnity.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 17(1)Singapore
Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 17(2)Singapore
Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 17(3)Singapore
Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 17(4)Singapore
Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 17(5)Singapore
Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 3(1)Singapore
Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 3(2)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Workmen's Compensation Act
  • Principal
  • Contractor
  • Sub-contractor
  • Sub-subcontractor
  • Place
  • Workman
  • Compensation
  • Policy

15.2 Keywords

  • Workmen's Compensation Act
  • Principal liability
  • Traffic accident
  • Sub-subcontractor
  • Place of work

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Workmen's Compensation

17. Areas of Law

  • Employment Law
  • Workmen's Compensation Law