Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction: Employee Injury Claim Dismissed
Lu Bang Song, a construction worker, appealed a District Court decision regarding a personal injury claim against his employers, Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd and Grandbuild Construction Pte Ltd, arising from an industrial accident. The High Court, presided over by Chao Hick Tin JA, dismissed Lu's appeal and allowed the employers' cross-appeal, finding that Lu had not proven the employers' negligence. The court determined that Lu was the cause of his own misfortune.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Lu's appeal dismissed and the Employers’ cross-appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a personal injury claim. The court dismissed the employee's appeal, finding no negligence on the part of the employers.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lu Bang Song | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Liu Shiu Yi, Belinder Kaur |
| Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Cross-Appeal Allowed | Won | Ramesh Appoo |
| Grandbuild Construction Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Cross-Appeal Allowed | Won | Ramesh Appoo |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Liu Shiu Yi | Hoh Law Corporation |
| Belinder Kaur | Hoh Law Corporation |
| Ramesh Appoo | Just Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Lu was injured while discharging pre-mixed concrete from a metal bucket.
- Lu was assigned to concrete casting work on the roof.
- The crane lifting the bucket could not reach the boundary wall.
- Lu entered the enclosed area and pulled the lever to release the concrete alone.
- The bucket swung and hit Lu, causing him to fall.
- Lu's co-workers were not present when he discharged the concrete.
- Lu had attended a safety orientation course.
5. Formal Citations
- Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd and Another and Another Appeal, DA 24/2008, 25/2008, [2009] SGHC 49
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Industrial accident occurred at the worksite. | |
| District Judge's oral grounds. | |
| Employers' prior offer to settle. | |
| District Court Appeal filed. | |
| Counsel for Lu requested further arguments. | |
| High Court decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court held that the employers were not negligent and that the employee was the creator of his own misfortune.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide a safe system of work
- Insufficient supervision
- Contributory negligence
- Safe System of Work
- Outcome: The court found that a safe system of work was in place and that the accident was due to the employee's failure to comply with it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Adequacy of safety measures
- Compliance with safety regulations
- Contributory Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the employee was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Employee's failure to take precautions
- Disregarding safety instructions
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Statutory Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- Construction Accident Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 236 | Singapore | Cited as the grounds of decision of the District Judge. |
| Loy Chin Associates Pte Ltd v Auto Trading Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] SLR 755 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge cannot decide a matter on grounds not part of the pleaded case. |
| MFH Marine Pte Ltd v Asmoniah bin Mohamad | N/A | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 368 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that issues for determination by the court should be carefully framed and all parties should have the opportunity to address the court on those issues before the court adjudicates thereon. |
| Haji Mohamed Dom v Sakiman | N/A | Yes | [1956] MLJ 45 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a Judge is bound to decide a case on the issues on the record. |
| Janagi v Ong Boon Kiat | N/A | Yes | [1971] 2 MLJ 196 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court is not entitled to decide a suit on a matter on which no issue has been raised by the parties. |
| Boustead Trading (1985) v Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 MLJ 331 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a court may permit an unpleaded point to be raised if no injustice will be occasioned thereby to the other party. |
| Siti Aisha binti Ibrahim v Goh Cheng Hwai | N/A | Yes | [1982] 2 MLJ 124 | N/A | Cited for the principle that evidence given at trial can, where appropriate, overcome defects in the pleadings provided the other party is not taken by surprise. |
| Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 579 | Singapore | Cited for the employer's duty to maintain a safe system of work and provide effective supervision. |
| Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 6 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case; cited for the principle of an employer's duty to provide a safe system of work. |
| Sarah Ellen Mulholland v Roger Philip Edmonds | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there are no proprietary rights in a witness. |
| PP v Abdul Nasir bin Abdul Rahim | High Court | Yes | [1997] SGHC 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there are no proprietary rights in a witness. |
| General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas | N/A | Yes | [1953] AC 180 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an 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 | Yes | [1953] 2 All ER 391 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an employer 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’. |
| Pape v Cumbria County Council | N/A | Yes | [1992] 3 All ER 211 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the employer must devise a suitable system and instruct his men in what they must do. |
| Chua Ah Beng v C & P Holdings Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 106 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it was not the law that an employer must give instructions on every aspect of his work. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Factories (Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction) Regulations (Cap 104, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Concrete casting
- Industrial accident
- Safe system of work
- Negligence
- Contributory negligence
- Foreman
- Signalman
- Bucket
- Crane
- Worksite
15.2 Keywords
- Construction accident
- Personal injury
- Negligence
- Employment law
- Singapore
- High Court
- Appeal
- Industrial accident
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Employment Law
- Personal Injury
17. Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Tort
- Construction Law
- Negligence