Kamis bin Satari v Nasir Natarajan: Striking Out Claim Under Workmen's Compensation Act
In Kamis bin Satari v Nasir Natarajan, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Kamis bin Satari against the decision to strike out his claim for damages against Nasir Natarajan for personal injuries sustained in an accident. Kamis had already received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Kamis was not entitled to pursue his claim for damages after receiving compensation under the Act and that his alleged mistake in believing the compensation was an interim payment was not genuine.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court struck out Kamis bin Satari's claim for damages after he received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kamis bin Satari | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Nasir Natarajan | Respondent | Individual | Claim struck out | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew J Hanam | Clifford Law Corporation |
| Joseph Goh | Vincent Lim and Joseph Goh |
4. Facts
- Kamis filed an action against Nasir for damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident.
- Kamis and Nasir were co-workers employed by Wanin Industries Pte Ltd.
- Asia Insurance Company Limited was Wanin’s insurer of the lorry.
- Asia agreed to an interim payment of $5,000 to Kamis.
- Kamis received $11,025 from QBE Insurance as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
- Asia applied to strike out Kamis’ claim and for the return of the $5,000.
- Kamis alleged he thought the $11,025 was the interim payment.
5. Formal Citations
- Kamis bin Satari v Nasir Natarajan, DC Suit 5221/2003, RA 18/2005, [2005] SGHC 188
- , , [2005] SGDC 107
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accident occurred | |
| Action filed | |
| Kamis received compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act | |
| Cheque for interim payment forwarded to Kamis’ solicitors | |
| Kamis collected the cheque | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether workman's claim for damages should be struck out in light of s 18(a) of Act
- Outcome: The court held that the workman's claim should be struck out.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether consequences of s 18(a) avoided where workman receiving compensation under genuine mistake
- Outcome: The court held that even if there was a genuine mistake, the compensation must be repaid before the workman is allowed to continue with his action for damages.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for personal injuries and losses
9. Cause of Actions
- Personal Injury
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Law
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Swee Fong v Gammon (Malaya) 1959 Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1962] 1 MLJ 295 | Malaysia | Cited for the proposition that a workman is not barred from pursuing his claim for damages under the common law if he received workmen’s compensation in ignorance of his right to claim damages or if he did not know that the payment he was receiving was being made by way of such compensation. |
| Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited | N/A | Yes | [1946] AC 163 | England | Cited for the proposition that a workman is not barred from pursuing his claim for damages under the common law if he received workmen’s compensation in ignorance of his right to claim damages or if he did not know that the payment he was receiving was being made by way of such compensation. |
| Olsen v Magnesium Castings & Products Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1947] 1 All ER 333 | England | Cited for the proposition that a workman is not barred from pursuing his claim for damages under the common law if he received workmen’s compensation in ignorance of his right to claim damages or if he did not know that the payment he was receiving was being made by way of such compensation. |
| Knipe v British Railways Board | N/A | Yes | [1972] 1 QB 361 | England | Cited for the proposition that a workman is not barred from pursuing his claim for damages under the common law if he received workmen’s compensation in ignorance of his right to claim damages or if he did not know that the payment he was receiving was being made by way of such compensation. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited regarding the power to strike out should not be exercised by a minute and protracted examination of the facts but it could be exercised in plain and obvious cases |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 18(a) | Singapore |
| Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) s 33(2)(a) | Singapore |
| UK Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (c 84) s 29(1) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Workmen’s Compensation Act
- Interim Payment
- Compensation
- Damages
- Mistake
- Striking Out
15.2 Keywords
- workmen compensation
- personal injury
- employment law
- negligence
- damages
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Employment Law | 90 |
| Work Injury Compensation | 90 |
| Personal Injury | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Workmen's Compensation