Selvam Raju v Camelron General Contractors: Workmen's Compensation Claim Dispute

Selvam Raju appealed to the High Court of Singapore on March 3, 2010, against the Commissioner's decision to deny his claim for workmen's compensation against Camelron General Contractors. The Commissioner ruled that the injury was not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The High Court, Choo Han Teck J, dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law by the Commissioner.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against Commissioner's decision to deny Selvam Raju's workmen's compensation claim. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AnotherRespondentOtherAppeal DismissedWon
Selvam RajuAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Camelron General ContractorsRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramesh AppooJust Law LLC
Perumal AthithamYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation
P Kamala DewiYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Selvam Raju claimed injury to his back while dismantling a lift motor.
  2. He initially reported carrying the motor with three others when he heard a cracking sound.
  3. At the hearing, he claimed injury while preventing the motor from falling.
  4. The Commissioner produced Raju's statement to the Ministry of Manpower, highlighting inconsistencies.
  5. The Commissioner found Raju's credibility impeached due to discrepancies.
  6. The Commissioner stated that Raju’s account was not corroborated by his witness or medical reports.
  7. The medical report of Dr Ramdass stated that the Appellant had been complaining of a pain in his back for some time before the alleged accident took place.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Selvam Raju v Camelron General Contractors and another, Originating Summons No 333 of 2008, [2010] SGHC 68

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Originating Summons No 333 of 2008
Judgment reserved
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Bias
    • Outcome: The court held that the allegation of bias must be raised via judicial review, not appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Impeachment of Credit
    • Outcome: The court held that the Commissioner was entitled to consider the Appellant’s credit as impeached.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1948] MLJ 57
  3. Application of Presumption under s 3(6) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that the presumption in s 3(6) did not arise because the Commissioner did not find the injury to have been sustained in the course of the Appellant’s employment at all.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Compensation for Injury

9. Cause of Actions

  • Workmen’s Compensation Claim

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthyN/AYes[1924] 1 KB 256N/ACited regarding allegations of bias.
Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd v Lannon & Ors and R v London Rent Assessment Panel Committee, ex parte Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) LtdN/AYes[1969] 1 QB 577N/ACited regarding allegations of bias.
De Souza Lionel Jerome v A-GN/AYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 552SingaporeCited regarding allegations of bias.
Re Singh KalpanathN/AYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 595SingaporeCited regarding allegations of bias.
R v Epping and Harlow General Commissioners, ex parte GoldstrawN/AYes[1983] 3 All ER 257N/ACited regarding judicial review remedies.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte SwatiN/AYes[1986] 1 WLR 477N/ACited regarding judicial review remedies.
Ex parte WaldronN/AYes[1986] QB 824N/ACited regarding judicial review remedies.
Next of Kin of Ramu Vanniyar Ravichandran v Fongsoon Enterprises (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 105SingaporeCited regarding questions of law in workmen's compensation cases.
Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd (No 2)Court of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 494SingaporeCited regarding the definition of 'question of law'.
Ahong Construction (S) Pte Ltd v United Boulevard Pte LtdN/AYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 208SingaporeCited regarding the definition of 'question of law'.
Karuppiah Ravichandran v GDS Engineering Pte LtdN/AYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1028SingaporeCited regarding the definition of 'question of law' under the Act.
Ng Swee Lang v Sasson Samuel BernardN/AYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 522SingaporeCited regarding the distinction between appeals from arbitral awards and decisions of statutory boards.
Edwards v BairstowN/AYes[1956] AC 14N/ACited regarding factual findings amounting to an error in point of law.
Muthusamy v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1948] MLJ 57N/ACited regarding impeachment of credit.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Workmen’s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Workmen’s Compensation Act
  • Impeachment of Credit
  • Presumption
  • Bias
  • Course of Employment
  • Arising out of Employment

15.2 Keywords

  • Workmen's Compensation
  • Appeal
  • Bias
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Employment Injury

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Workers Compensation90
Evidence60
Civil Procedure50
Administrative Law40
Bias30

16. Subjects

  • Workmen's Compensation
  • Civil Procedure
  • Administrative Law