Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd v Rasan Selvan: Employer's Duty of Care and Workplace Safety
In Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd v Rasan Selvan, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd, a building contractor, against the District Court's decision holding them liable for injuries sustained by their employee, Rasan Selvan, at a factory worksite. The High Court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed the appeal, reaffirming an employer's non-delegable duty to provide a safe system of work and adequate supervision, especially when deploying workers to various sites for diverse tasks. The case involved a negligence claim.
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
Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd appealed a decision finding them liable for an employee's injury due to unsafe work conditions. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the employer's non-delegable duty of care.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Rasan Selvan | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | |
| TSS Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Interlocutory judgment entered against it | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Eu | United Legal Alliance LLC |
| Kamala Devi | Yeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Rasan was employed by Hao Wei as a construction worker.
- Hao Wei deployed Rasan to work at a factory.
- Rasan was instructed to operate a bar bending machine without proper training.
- The bar bending machine lacked a stopper, creating a safety hazard.
- Rasan was injured when bars being bent by the machine hit him.
- Hao Wei's director admitted awareness of dangers at the factory but did not warn employees.
- Hao Wei was the subcontractor of TSSC.
5. Formal Citations
- Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd v Rasan Selvan, DA 25/2007, [2008] SGHC 148
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rasan began working for Hao Wei as a construction worker. | |
| Hao Wei deployed Rasan to work in a factory. | |
| Rasan was injured at the factory. | |
| Rasan commenced proceedings against TSSC. | |
| Rasan added Hao Wei as the second defendant in his suit. | |
| Trial focused on Hao Wei’s liability. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that Hao Wei breached its duty of care to Rasan by failing to provide a safe system of work and effective supervision.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide safe system of work
- Failure to provide effective supervision
- Related Cases:
- [1938] AC 57
- [1999] 4 SLR 579
- [1987] AC 906
- [1998] 2 SLR 145
- Non-Delegable Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court affirmed that an employer's duty to provide a safe system of work is non-delegable.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1987] AC 906
- [1998] 2 SLR 145
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- Construction Law
- Workplace Injury
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English | House of Lords | Yes | [1938] AC 57 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that an employer has a common law duty of care to provide competent staff, adequate material, a proper system of work, and effective supervision. |
| Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 579 | Singapore | Endorsed the position adopted in Wilsons and Clyde and added that the employer must devise a suitable system and instruct his men in what they must do. |
| Pape v Cumbria County Council | N/A | No | [1992] 3 All ER 211 | N/A | Cited in Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd for the principle that the employer must devise a suitable system and instruct his men in what they must do. |
| General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas | House of Lords | No | [1953] AC 180 | United Kingdom | Cited in Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd for the principle that in devising a safe system, the employer should be aware that workmen are often careless for their own safety, and his system must, as far as possible, reduce the effects of an employee’s own carelessness. |
| Woods v Durable Suites Ltd | N/A | No | [1953] 1 WLR 857 | N/A | Cited in Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd for the principle that the employer must also take reasonable care to ensure that his system is complied with, but he is not obliged ‘to stand over workmen of age and experience at every moment they are working … to see that they do what they are supposed to do’. |
| McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] AC 906 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an employer’s obligation to take reasonable care to provide a safe system of work is non-delegable. |
| The “Lotus M (No 2)” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 145 | Singapore | Followed McDermid and emphasized that the duty to take reasonable care to provide a safe system of work rests on the employer and that it is non-delegable. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Workmen’s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Duty of care
- Safe system of work
- Effective supervision
- Non-delegable duty
- Workplace safety
- Bar bending machine
- Post concussion syndrome
15.2 Keywords
- employment law
- workplace safety
- negligence
- duty of care
- construction
- industrial accident
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Workplace Safety and Health | 95 |
| Employment Law | 90 |
| Negligence | 85 |
| Torts | 80 |
| Personal Injury | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Workplace Safety
- Negligence