Allianz Insurance v Ma Shoudong: Work Injury Compensation for Myocardial Bridging
Allianz Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Singapore Aviation and General Insurance Co Pte Ltd appealed against the decision of the Assistant Commissioner for Labour to award $140,000 to Ma Shoudong and Wang Jijin, the parents of the deceased, Wang Zeng Ming, under the Work Injury Compensation Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commissioner was correct in determining that the deceased's death arose out of and in the course of his employment with Singapore Airport Terminal Services Limited.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court upheld the Commissioner's award of compensation to the parents of a deceased employee, finding the death arose from his employment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allianz Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Niru Pillai |
| Singapore Aviation and General Insurance Co Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Niru Pillai |
| Singapore Airport Terminal Services Limited | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Niru Pillai |
| Ma Shoudong | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Shanker Kumar |
| Wang Jijin | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Shanker Kumar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Niru Pillai | Global Law Alliance LLC |
| Shanker Kumar | Hoh Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The deceased, Wang Zeng Ming, was a 21-year-old cabin service assistant at SATS.
- The deceased collapsed and died after making deliveries to aeroplanes.
- The Commissioner awarded $140,000 to the deceased's parents under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
- The deceased had a congenital heart condition called Myocardial Bridging.
- The respondents' expert witness testified that the physical strain of the deceased's work exacerbated his heart condition.
- The appellants' expert witness testified that the deceased's heart condition was generally benign and the death was due to sudden death syndrome.
- The Commissioner preferred the evidence of the respondents' expert witness.
5. Formal Citations
- Allianz Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Ma Shoudong and another, Originating Summons No 1158 of 2010/Z, [2011] SGHC 106
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deceased began working as a cabin service assistant for SATS. | |
| Wang Zeng Ming passed away. | |
| Commissioner awarded $140,000 to the respondents. | |
| Appellants filed Originating Summons No 1158 of 2010. | |
| Commissioner issued grounds of decision. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the burden of proof shifted to the appellants to prove that the accident had not arisen out of the deceased’s employment.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2006] SGHC 162
- Arising out of and in the course of employment
- Outcome: The court found that the accident arose in the course of the deceased's employment because it occurred while he was at work.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1918] AC 304
- (1933) 50 CLR 504
- [1917] AC 352
- [1940] AC 955
- Commissioner's Finding of Fact
- Outcome: The court held that the Commissioner's finding was not one that no person would have come to if he had properly applied the relevant law.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1028
8. Remedies Sought
- Compensation for death
9. Cause of Actions
- Work Injury Compensation Claim
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- Insurance Litigation
11. Industries
- Aviation
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McLauchlan v Anderson | Court of Session | Yes | [1911] SC 529 | Scotland | Cited to illustrate the relationship between 'arising out of' and 'arising in the course of' employment, but distinguished as the court found the concepts were not always distinct. |
| Fenton v J Thorley & Co., Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1903] AC 443 | United Kingdom | Cited to contrast the interpretation of 'injury by accident' as a compound phrase, which the Singapore Act does not follow. |
| NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Ltd and another v Next of kin of Narayasamy s/o Ramasamy, deceased | High Court | Yes | [2006] SGHC 162 | Singapore | Cited to define the three conditions an employee must prove under s 3(1) of the Work Injury Compensation Act. |
| Charles R Davidson and Company v M’Robb or Officer | House of Lords | Yes | [1918] AC 304 | United Kingdom | Cited to explain the meaning of 'arising out of the employment' and 'in the course of employment'. |
| Smith v The Australian Woollen Mills Limited | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1933) 50 CLR 504 | Australia | Cited to support the principle that a direct or physical causation is not necessary for an accident to arise out of employment. |
| Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway v Highley | House of Lords | Yes | [1917] AC 352 | United Kingdom | Cited to illustrate that the accident must have arisen because of some intrinsic risk in the nature of the employment. |
| Ormond v C D Holmes & Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1937] 2 All ER 795 | England and Wales | Cited by the appellants, but the court found it irrelevant as it turned solely on whether the second attack was an 'accident'. |
| Hawkins v Powells Tillery Steam Coal Company, Limited | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1911] 1 KB 988 | England and Wales | Cited by the appellants, but the court found that it does not support the appellants’ contention and should be taken to have been overruled. |
| Weaver v Tredegar Iron and Coal Company, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1940] AC 955 | United Kingdom | Cited to elaborate on the test for determining whether an accident arises in the course of employment. |
| Karuppiah Ravichandran v GDS Engineering Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1028 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that decisions of the Commissioner are not to be examined as though they are decisions of a court of law. |
| Loh Kwang Seang v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1960] MLJ 271 | Malaysia | Cited by the appellants, but the court found it has no relevance. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
| Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) s 3(6) | Singapore |
| Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) s 29(2A) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Work Injury Compensation Act
- Myocardial Bridging
- Arising out of employment
- In the course of employment
- Burden of proof
- Sudden death syndrome
- Cardiac arrest
- Lethal arrhythmia
15.2 Keywords
- Work Injury Compensation
- Myocardial Bridging
- Employment
- Death
- Singapore
- SATS
- Allianz Insurance
16. Subjects
- Work Injury
- Compensation
- Employment Law
17. Areas of Law
- Work Injury Compensation Law
- Insurance Law