Yang Dan v Xian De Lai: Work Injury Compensation & General Law Claim
In Yang Dan v Xian De Lai Shanghai Cuisine Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding whether Yang Dan could pursue a general law claim against his employer, Xian De Lai Shanghai Cuisine Pte Ltd, after receiving a zero incapacity assessment for his work injury compensation claim. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that once an order has been made on the compensation claim, it is too late for the workman to withdraw his compensation claim to pursue a general law claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed whether an employee, Yang Dan, could pursue a common law claim after receiving zero incapacity assessment under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yang Dan | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Xian De Lai Shanghai Cuisine Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Harvindarjit Singh Bath | Hoh Law Corporation |
| Ooi Oon Tat | Wong Alliance LLP |
4. Facts
- The respondent was employed by the appellant as a chef.
- On 13 December 2006, the respondent was injured in an accident in the course of his employment.
- The respondent was using a handheld rotary grinder to sharpen kitchen knives and a saw.
- The grinding disc of the rotary grinder broke and a piece flew into the respondent’s face, injuring him.
- In December 2007, the respondent made a Compensation Claim.
- On 17 January 2008, the Commissioner for Labour issued a Notice of Assessment of Compensation which assessed that the respondent had no permanent incapacity.
- On 7 May 2008, the Commissioner issued a Certificate of Order made under WICA stating that by consent, the respondent’s permanent incapacity was assessed to be zero percent for his Compensation Claim.
- On 9 December 2009, the respondent commenced this action against the appellant in the District Court for damages, claiming that the appellant breached its common law and statutory duties.
5. Formal Citations
- Yang Dan v Xian De Lai Shanghai Cuisine Pte Ltd, District Court Suit No 4289 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 98 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 346
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent injured in an accident | |
| Respondent made a Compensation Claim | |
| Dr. Ng issued a medical report recommending zero percent for permanent incapacity | |
| Commissioner issued a Notice of Assessment of Compensation assessing no permanent incapacity | |
| Work Injury Compensation Act came into force | |
| Pre-hearing conference held | |
| Commissioner issued a Certificate of Order stating respondent's permanent incapacity was assessed to be zero percent | |
| Respondent's solicitors requested to withdraw the compensation claim | |
| Respondent commenced action against the appellant in the District Court for damages | |
| Commissioner replied that the respondent's claim could not be withdrawn | |
| Appellant applied to strike out the respondent's action | |
| Deputy Registrar struck out the respondent's action | |
| District Judge allowed the appeal | |
| Arguments heard | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Right to Pursue General Law Claim After Compensation Claim
- Outcome: The court held that a workman may proceed with a General Law Claim even after the Commissioner has assessed that zero compensation is payable on his Compensation Claim provided that he first withdraws his Compensation Claim. However, once an order has been made on the Compensation Claim, it will be too late for the workman to withdraw his Compensation Claim to pursue a General Law Claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of Section 33(2)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act
- Outcome: The court interpreted section 33(2)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act to mean that a workman may proceed with a General Law Claim even after the Commissioner has assessed that zero compensation is payable on his Compensation Claim provided that he first withdraws his Compensation Claim.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of common law duties
- Breach of statutory duties
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yang Dan v Xian De Lai Shanghai Cuisine Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 237 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision that was appealed against. |
| Ying Tai Plastic & Metal Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd v Zahrin bin Rabu | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983-1984] SLR(R) 212 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application to the Commissioner does not automatically abrogate a workman's common law right for damages and that a workman has the right to withdraw his Compensation Claim and make a General Law Claim. |
| Rahenah bte L Mande v Baxter Healthcare Pte Ltd and Another | High Court | Yes | [2002] SGHC 320 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a workman had to expressly notify the Commissioner that he is withdrawing his Compensation Claim before pursuing a General Law Claim and that such withdrawal had to be expressly notified to the Commissioner before it had been finally assessed by the Commissioner. |
| Chua Ah Beng v Commissioner for Labour | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 945 | Singapore | Cited for obiter remarks on section 33(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the suggestion that the workman would have to withdraw his Compensation Claim before proceeding with a General Law Claim. |
| Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 648 | Singapore | Cited to show that the point was not decided in Ying Tai Plastic and suggested, obiter, that a workman may suspend or stay his Compensation Claim and proceed with a General Law Claim or vice versa. |
| Zahrin bin Rabu v Ying Tai Plastic & Metal Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1981-1982] SLR(R) 511 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that if an order for compensation had been made, it could have been argued that the order merged with other rights of action. |
| Xu Jiang Lin v Tiong Seng Contractors Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 270 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that the workman's withdrawal of his Compensation Claim was effective even though the withdrawal was made after the Commissioner's positive assessment and that the workman's General Law Claim should be reinstated. |
| Abdus Salam Hashem Miah v Utraco Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 231 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that the plaintiff could not withdraw his claim after the Commissioner's final determination. |
| Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company | House of Lords | Yes | [1946] AC 163 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a workman is not entitled to pursue a General Law Claim if he fails in a prior Compensation Claim. |
| Cribb v Kynoch, Limited (No. 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1908] 2 KB 551 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a workman cannot proceed to trial under the Act and fail and then proceed by common law action, and, also cannot proceed by common law action and having failed in that action then proceed under the Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18, rule 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Workmen’s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act (Act 5 of 2008) | Singapore |
| Section 24 Workmen’s Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 25 Workmen’s Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 33 Workmen’s Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 25A Work Injury Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 25B Work Injury Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 25D Work Injury Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 28(1) Work Injury Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 33(2) Work Injury Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 33(2A) Work Injury Compensation Act | Singapore |
| Section 33(2B) Work Injury Compensation Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Work Injury Compensation Act
- Workmen’s Compensation Act
- General Law Claim
- Compensation Claim
- Permanent Incapacity
- Commissioner for Labour
- Notice of Assessment
- Certificate of Order
- Pre-hearing Conference
- Section 33 Prohibition
15.2 Keywords
- work injury
- compensation
- general law claim
- negligence
- chef
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Work Injury Compensation | 90 |
| Personal Injury | 50 |
| Civil Litigation | 30 |
| Jurisdiction | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Work Injury
- Compensation Law
- Civil Litigation