Huationg (Asia) v Lonpac Insurance: Work Injury Compensation & Motorcycling Exception

Huationg (Asia) Pte Ltd appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the District Judge's decision to allow Lonpac Insurance Bhd's claim for reimbursement of $140,000, which Lonpac paid under a Work Injury Compensation Insurance Policy for the death of Huationg's employee, Tan Thian Kok, in a motorcycle accident. The primary legal issue was whether a 'Motorcycling Exception' in the policy applied to the entire policy or only to a 'Travelling Extension'. The High Court, presided over by Justice George Wei, dismissed the appeal, affirming the District Judge's decision that Lonpac was entitled to recover the compensation paid.

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

Huationg (Asia) appeals against the decision to allow Lonpac Insurance's claim for reimbursement of a work injury compensation payout. The key legal issue is the interpretation of a motorcycling exception clause.

1.7 Decision Date

22 December 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lonpac Insurance Bhd	Respondent	Corporation	Claim allowed	Won	Raymond Wong of Wong Thomas & Leong John Lo Ying Xi of Wong Thomas & Leong
HUATIONG (ASIA) PTE LTD	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Teo Weng Kie of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Loh Ling Wei of Tan Kok Quan Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
George Wei	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Raymond Wong	Wong Thomas & Leong
John Lo Ying Xi	Wong Thomas & Leong
Teo Weng Kie	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Loh Ling Wei	Tan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

The Appellant maintained a Work Injury Compensation Insurance policy with the Respondent.
The Deceased Employee was deployed as a crane and hoist operator.
The Deceased Employee was granted permission to leave the worksite to purchase food.
The Deceased Employee died in a road traffic accident while travelling on his motorcycle.
The Commissioner of Labour assessed the compensation payable to be $140,000.
The Respondent paid the assessed compensation to the Commissioner.
The Respondent sought reimbursement from the Appellant for the compensation paid.

5. Formal Citations

Huationg (Asia) Pte Ltd v Lonpac Insurance Bhd, , [2015] SGHC 326
Unknown, District Court Appeal No 8 of 2015, District Court Appeal No 8 of 2015

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-08-22	Work Injury Compensation Insurance policy commenced.
2011-08-21	Work Injury Compensation Insurance policy expired.
2011-06-26	Deceased Employee's deployment began.
2011-06-27	Deceased Employee died in a road traffic accident.
2011-10-31	Commissioner of Labour assessed compensation payable at $140,000.
2011-11-11	Respondent lodged an objection to the Notice of Assessment.
2012-03-19	Assistant Commissioner indicated that the Respondent was compellable to pay the Assessed Compensation.
2012-03-21	Certificate of Order was made.
2012-04-09	Respondent paid the Assessed Compensation.
2012-08-03	Respondent brought an action against the Appellant for reimbursement.
2015-12-23	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Interpretation of Insurance Policy
- Outcome: The court held that the Motorcycling Exception applied to the entire policy, not just the Travelling Extension, and that the Respondent was entitled to recover the compensation paid.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Application of Motorcycling Exception
  - Scope of Travelling Extension
  - Effect of Avoidance and Recovery Clause
Employer's Liability under Work Injury Compensation Act
- Outcome: The court clarified the scope of an employer's liability for accidents 'arising out of and in the course of employment' under the Act.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Reimbursement Claim

10. Practice Areas

Insurance Litigation
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Insurance
Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Allianz Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ma Shoudong	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1167	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'arising out of and in the course of employment' under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
Armstrong, Whitworth & Co v Redford	House of Lords	Yes	[1920] 1 AC 757	England	Cited regarding whether a mid-day meal is incidental to employment.
Weaver v Tredegar Iron and Coal Company, Limited	House of Lords	Yes	[1940] AC 955	England	Cited for the principle that breaks for meals or refreshments are deemed to be 'in the course of employment'.
Harvey v O'Dell (RG), Galway, Third Party	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1958] 2 QB 78	England	Cited regarding an accident during a journey from one work site to another with a deviation to collect tools and have a meal break.
Quainoo v NZ Breweries Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 1 NZLR 161	New Zealand	Cited for the principle that a contract is to be construed objectively, not by reference to the subjective intentions of the parties.
Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1956] 1 WLR 461	England	Cited for the 'red hand' principle regarding onerous clauses in contracts.
NTUC Co-operative Insurance Commonwealth Enterprise Ltd v Chiang Soong Chee	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 373	Singapore	Cited regarding the insurer's duty to educate the public about the limited scope of disability benefits in their policies.
Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Insurance Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 95	Singapore	Cited regarding the insurer's duty to inform the insured of any unusual clauses in an insurance policy.
Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 712	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the red hand rule is inapplicable where there is a signed contract with an explicit incorporation clause.
Attorney-General v Chia Soo Choo	High Court	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 822	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'liable'.
Kee Yau Chong v S H Interdeco Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 189	Singapore	Cited for the observation that the Act is a social legislation which should be interpreted purposively in favour of employees.
Cole v Accident Insurance Co	Unknown	Yes	(1889) 5 TLR 736	Unknown	Cited for the principle that one must find ambiguity before applying the contra proferentum rule.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway v Highley	House of Lords	Yes	[1917] AC 352	England	Cited for the principle of causation in relation to accidents arising out of employment.
Mayban General Assurance Berhad v Sumathira & Anor	High Court	Yes	OM 10 of 2004	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an insurance policy is 'in force' if the insurer and insured act on that basis at the material time.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 23 of the Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 3 of the Work Injury Compensation Act	Singapore
Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 4(4) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Work Injury Compensation Insurance Policy
Motorcycling Exception
Travelling Extension
Avoidance and Recovery Clause
Arising out of and in the course of employment
Assessed Compensation
Approved Policy
WICA Regime
Commissioner of Labour

15.2 Keywords

Work Injury Compensation
Insurance Policy
Motorcycling Exception
Contract Interpretation
Singapore Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Work Injury Compensation	95
Insurance	80
Insurance Policy Interpretation	70
Contract Law	60

16. Subjects

Insurance
Contract Law
Work Injury Compensation