Chandran v Dockers Marine: Employer's Duty of Care & Workplace Safety for Stevedores

In Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal from Chandran a/l Subbiah, who claimed damages for personal injuries sustained while working for Dockers Marine Pte Ltd. Chandran fell from a height while loading cargo containers. The Court of Appeal, Rajah JA delivering the judgment, allowed the appeal, finding Dockers Marine liable for failing to ensure workplace safety by not conducting a risk assessment and providing safety equipment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal held Dockers Marine liable for injuries sustained by Chandran, a stevedore, due to a fall from height, emphasizing employer's duty of care.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chandran a/l SubbiahAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Dockers Marine Pte LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Perumal AthithamYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation
P Kamala DewiYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation
Michael Eu Hai MengUnited Legal Alliance LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant, a stevedore, was employed by the respondent, a stevedoring company.
  2. On 18 October 2005, the appellant was instructed to report to PSA Pasir Panjang Wharves for work.
  3. The appellant was assigned to Hatch 5 of the vessel Tasman Mariner to load cargo containers.
  4. Access to Hatch 5 was via a metal rung ladder hanging vertically alongside the inner hull of the vessel.
  5. The appellant fell from a height of about ten metres when the ladder he was on detached from the hull.
  6. The appellant sustained severe head injuries, visual defects, cognitive impairment, and headaches.
  7. The respondent did not conduct any safety briefings before the work commenced.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd, CA 21/2009, [2009] SGCA 58
  2. Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd, , [2009] 3 SLR 995

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant injured in fall from height
Judgment reserved
Court of Appeal delivers judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondent breached its duty of care to the appellant by failing to conduct a risk assessment and provide safety equipment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to provide a safe system of work
      • Failure to provide a safe place of work
      • Failure to conduct risk assessment
      • Failure to provide safety equipment
    • Related Cases:
      • [1938] AC 57
      • [1987] 1 AC 906
  2. Employer's Liability
    • Outcome: The court held the respondent liable as an employer for the injuries sustained by the appellant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-delegable duty of care
      • Duty to inspect third-party premises
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] 1 AC 906

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for personal injuries
  2. Consequential losses

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Common Law Duty of Care

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Employment Litigation

11. Industries

  • Stevedoring
  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Thomson v CreminN/AYes[1956] 1 WLR 103ScotlandConsidered in relation to the duty of a master stevedore to inspect a vessel not owned by himself.
William Durie v Andrew Main & SonsScottish Divisional CourtYes[1958] SC 48ScotlandConsidered in relation to the duty of a master stevedore to inspect a vessel not owned by himself.
Marney v ScottN/AYes[1899] 1 QB 986EnglandConsidered in relation to occupier's liability and the duty to inspect premises.
McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclaimation Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] 1 AC 906EnglandCited for clarification of the scope of the non-delegable duty of an employer to take care of the health and safety of its employees.
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company, Limited v EnglishHouse of LordsYesWilsons & Clyde Coal Company, Limited v English, [1938] AC 57EnglandCited as a landmark case that attempted to sidestep the doctrine of common employment by expanding the scope of primarily liability.
Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) LtdN/AYesStokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1776EnglandCited for the description of the duty of an employer to secure the safety of its employees.
Barber v Somerset County CouncilHouse of LordsYesBarber v Somerset County Council [2004] 1 WLR 1089EnglandCited for approval of the summary of the duty of an employer to secure the safety of its employees.
Araveanthan v Nippon Pigment (S) Pte LtdN/AYesAraveanthan v Nippon Pigment (S) Pte Ltd [1992] 1 SLR 545SingaporeCited for the statement that the common law requires employers to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees.
Hutchinson v York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway CompanyN/AYesHutchinson v York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company (1850) 5 Exch 343EnglandCited to show that the employer’s duty was merely not to expose his employees to ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unreasonable’ risk.
M’Alister (or Donoghue)(Pauper) v StevensonN/AYesM’Alister (or Donoghue)(Pauper) v Stevenson [1932] AC 562ScotlandCited to show that tort cases decided prior to this case will need to be carefully reassessed for conceptual soundness.
Smith v Austin Lifts LtdN/AYesSmith v Austin Lifts Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 100EnglandCited for the statement that employers who send their workmen to work on the premises of others cannot renounce all responsibility for their safety.
Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning CoN/AYesWilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 QB 110EnglandCited for the statement that the duty is still the same whether the servant is working on the premises of the master or those of a stranger.
Blyth v Birmingham WaterworksN/AYesBlyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Ex. 781EnglandCited for the guiding principle of the standard of a reasonable person.
Parno v SC Marine Pte LtdN/AYesParno v SC Marine Pte Ltd [1999] 4 SLR 579SingaporeCited for the three-fold categorisation of employer’s duties.
Cole v De Trafford (No 2)N/AYesCole v De Trafford (No 2) [1918] 2 KB 523EnglandCited for the duty to provide safe premises and access to it.
Jenner v Allen West & Co LtdN/AYesJenner v Allen West & Co Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 554EnglandCited for the standard of safety to be applied is that of a reasonably prudent employer who provides a roof, scaffold or tunnel at which his men are to work.
Cavanagh v Ulster Weaving Co LtdN/AYesCavanagh v Ulster Weaving Co Ltd [1960] AC 145EnglandCited for the ruling principle that an employer is bound to take reasonable care for the safety of his workmen and all other rules and formulas must be taken subject to this principle.
Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors LdEnglish Court of AppealYesChristmas v General Cleaning Contractors Ld [1952] 1 KB 141EnglandCited for the proposition that employers are obligated to take reasonable measures to inspect work premises for safety hazards, even when those premises belong to a third party.
Cook v Square D LtdN/AYesCook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262EnglandCited as an illustration of circumstances where compliance with the golden rule will not require the performance of such a preliminary risk assessment.
Hodgson v British Arc Welding Company, Limited and B & N Green & Silley Weir, LimitedN/AYesHodgson v British Arc Welding Company, Limited and B & N Green & Silley Weir, Limited [1946] 1 KB 302EnglandRelied on by the respondent to show that, in the absence of special circumstances, there is no general duty on an employer, which may be a stevedoring firm, to inspect a vessel, belonging to a third party, on which its employees are to work.
Mace v R. & H. Green and Silley Weir LtdN/AYesMace v R. & H. Green and Silley Weir Ltd [1959] 2 QB 14EnglandRelied on by the respondent to show that, in the absence of special circumstances, there is no general duty on an employer, which may be a stevedoring firm, to inspect a vessel, belonging to a third party, on which its employees are to work.
Gibson v Skibs A/S Marina and Orkla Grobe A/B and Smith Coggins, LtdN/AYesGibson v Skibs A/S Marina and Orkla Grobe A/B and Smith Coggins, Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 476EnglandRelied on by the respondent to show that, in the absence of special circumstances, there is no general duty on an employer, which may be a stevedoring firm, to inspect a vessel, belonging to a third party, on which its employees are to work.
Shepherd v Pearson Engineering Services (Dundee) LtdN/AYesShepherd v Pearson Engineering Services (Dundee) Ltd (1980) SLT 197ScotlandRelied on by the respondent to show that, in the absence of special circumstances, there is no general duty on an employer, which may be a stevedoring firm, to inspect a vessel, belonging to a third party, on which its employees are to work.
William M’Lachlan v The Steamship “Peveril” Company, LimitedN/AYesWilliam M’Lachlan v The Steamship “Peveril” Company, Limited (1896) 23 R 753ScotlandCited to show that even then, in 1896, when the law on employment responsibilities was still in its infancy, there was an acknowledgment that stevedores had some obligations to discover defects.
Tsang Hing Cheung v Chan Po Ling Stella and OthersHong Kong High CourtYesTsang Hing Cheung v Chan Po Ling Stella and Others [2002] HKCU 1356Hong KongCited to show that the teeth of Cremin have over time been drawn in different ways.
Davie v New Merton Board Mills LtdN/AYesDavie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1959] AC 604EnglandCited for a critique of Lord Wright’s reasoning in the House of Lords decision.
O’Connor v Port Waratah Stevedoring Co. Pty. Ltd. And The Broken Hill Proprietary Co LtdSupreme Court of South AustraliaYesO’Connor v Port Waratah Stevedoring Co. Pty. Ltd. And The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd 13 SASR 119AustraliaCited for the observation that the proposition that employers have no obligations with regard to employees who work on the premises belonging to strangers no longer holds sway today.
Crombie v McDermott Scotland LtdOuter House of ScotlandYesCrombie v McDermott Scotland Ltd [1996] SLT 1238ScotlandCited for the test of whether in all the circumstances the performance of his duty of reasonable care calls for steps to be taken by the employer to acquaint himself with the physical circumstances in which his employees are to work.
Bolton v StoneN/AYesBolton v Stone [1951] AC 850EnglandCited for the view that the existence of some risk is an ordinary incident of life.
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v FoxHigh Court of AustraliaYesLeighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35AustraliaCited as an example of a situation where the standards set therein go far beyond what is reasonable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed)Singapore
Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Rev Ed)Singapore
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945England
Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Stevedore
  • Hatch
  • Cargo container
  • Ladder
  • Fall from height
  • Risk assessment
  • Safety equipment
  • Duty of care
  • Non-delegable duty
  • Workplace safety
  • Work Injury Compensation Act
  • Factories Act
  • Workplace Safety and Health Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Stevedore
  • Workplace safety
  • Duty of care
  • Negligence
  • Fall from height
  • Singapore
  • Employment law
  • Dockers Marine

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Employment Law90
Employer's Liability85
Work Injury Compensation80
Personal Injury75
Workplace Safety70
Negligence60
Stevedoring40
Construction Law10

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Tort Law
  • Workplace Safety
  • Negligence