Abdul Hadi bin Hamdan v Goldin Enterprise: Interpretation of Work Injury Compensation Act

In Abdul Hadi bin Hamdan v Goldin Enterprise Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the interpretation of s 33(2)(a) of the Work Injury Compensation Act. The plaintiff, Abdul Hadi bin Hamdan, an employee of the defendant, Goldin Enterprise Pte Ltd, sustained a workplace injury. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff was precluded from pursuing a common law claim due to his failure to withdraw his claim under the Act within the stipulated timeframe following the service of the notice of assessment.

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

The case concerns the interpretation of s 33(2)(a) of the Work Injury Compensation Act. The court held that the plaintiff was precluded from pursuing a common law claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Abdul Hadi bin HamdanPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Goldin Enterprise Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant.
  2. The plaintiff suffered an injury at his place of work on 8 November 2008.
  3. The commissioner served a notice of assessment on 1 February 2010.
  4. The plaintiff objected to the notice of assessment out of time.
  5. The plaintiff withdrew his claim under the Act on 16 March 2011.
  6. The plaintiff filed the writ in this suit on 30 June 2011.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Abdul Hadi bin Hamdan v Goldin Enterprise Pte Ltd, District Court Suit No 1990 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 116 of 2012), [2012] SGHC 192

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff suffered an injury at his place of work
Commissioner served a notice of assessment
Plaintiff instructed solicitors
Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the commissioner objecting to the Notice of Assessment
Commissioner notified the plaintiff of WICMB assessment of 17% permanent incapacity
Pre-hearing conference held; plaintiff's solicitor informed commissioner of withdrawal of claim
Plaintiff's solicitors confirmed withdrawal of claim under the Act
Plaintiff filed the writ in this suit
Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpretation of s 33(2)(a) of the Work Injury Compensation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that the term 'notice of assessment' refers to the notice in s 24(2) of the Act, and the 28-day period runs from the date of service of that notice.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages under common law

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yang Dan v Xian De Lai Shanghai Cuisine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 379SingaporeCited for the interpretation of the old Workmen’s Compensation Act regarding withdrawal of claims.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) s 33(2)(a)Singapore
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) s 24Singapore
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) s 25(1)Singapore
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) s 25DSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Notice of Assessment
  • Work Injury Compensation Act
  • Withdrawal of Claim
  • Common Law Claim
  • Permanent Incapacity

15.2 Keywords

  • Work Injury
  • Compensation
  • Notice of Assessment
  • Section 33(2)(a)
  • Withdrawal
  • Limitation

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Work Injury Compensation