Tan Lip Tiong v Commissioner of Labour: Mental Capacity Act & Work Injury Compensation
Tan Lip Tiong, as deputy for Tan Yun Yeow, filed Originating Summons No 265 of 2014 for judicial review of the Commissioner of Labour's decision that Tan Yun Yeow had made a valid claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act. SBG Starkstrom Pte Ltd, through Originating Summons No 918 of 2014, sought judicial review of the Commissioner's later decision that Tan Yun Yeow had not made a valid claim. The High Court, Quentin Loh J, held that a next-of-kin without court appointment lacks the capacity to make a claim under the Act on behalf of a mentally incapacitated employee. The court dismissed OS 918 and granted the quashing order sought in OS 265.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons No 918 of 2014 dismissed. Originating Summons No 265 of 2014 granted.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review of Commissioner of Labour's decision on work injury compensation claim for a mentally incapacitated employee. Claim deemed invalid.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Lip Tiong, Rodney as Deputy for Tan Yun Yeow | Applicant | Individual | Quashing Order Granted | Won | |
| The Commissioner of Labour | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Lost | Viveganandam Jesudevan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ang Ming Sheng Terence of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Kah Hwee Nicholas of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| SBG Starkstrom Pte Ltd | Respondent, Applicant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Noor Mohamed Marican | Marican & Associates |
| Ramasamy Chettiar | Marican & Associates |
| Viveganandam Jesudevan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ang Ming Sheng Terence | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Kah Hwee Nicholas | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Anparasan s/o Kamachi | KhattarWong LLP |
| Tan Hui Ying Grace | KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- The Injured Employee was involved in an electrical explosion on 19 March 2009 and slipped into a coma.
- The Injured Employee suffered severe burns and was assessed as a mentally disordered person of unsound mind.
- The Employer filed an i-Notification under the Act on 26 March 2009.
- Marican & Associates wrote to the Commissioner of Labour on 22 January 2010 stating that they represented Rodney Tan, the brother of the Injured Employee.
- The Commissioner received a medical report on 27 April 2010 confirming the Injured Employee was of unsound mind.
- Marican & Associates sent a letter on 20 May 2010 stating that the next of kin wished to claim compensation under the Act.
- Rodney Tan was appointed by the court as the deputy of the Injured Employee on 23 August 2012.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Lip Tiong, Rodney as Deputy for Tan Yun Yeow v The Commissioner of Labour and another matter, Originating Summons No 265 and 918 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 87
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Injured Employee involved in an electrical explosion and slipped into a coma. | |
| Employer filed an i-Notification under the Work Injury Compensation Act. | |
| Standard form letter sent to the Injured Employee asking whether he wished to make a claim under the Act. | |
| Tracheostomy performed on Injured Employee. | |
| Marican & Associates wrote to the Commissioner of Labour to inform her that they represented Rodney Tan. | |
| Mental Capacity Act came into force. | |
| Commissioner received a medical report confirming that the Injured Employee was of unsound mind. | |
| Marican & Associates sent a letter to the Commissioner of Labour stating that the next of kin wished to claim compensation under the Act. | |
| Commissioner issued the Notice of Assessment. | |
| Employer's insurers paid the sum of $225,000 as compensation under the Act to the Commission of Labour. | |
| Rodney Tan was appointed by the court as the deputy of the Injured Employee pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act. | |
| Commissioner wrote to Marican to check if Rodney Tan wished to claim compensation for the deceased. | |
| Marican replied to the Commissioner, stating that they needed a copy of the Commissioner’s investigation report. | |
| Marican wrote to the Commissioner stating that the Injured Employee did not make an application for compensation under the Act and that the Notice of Assessment was invalid. | |
| Marican stated clearly to the Commissioner that Rodney Tan had decided to claim compensation under the common law on behalf of the Injured Employee. | |
| Rodney Tan commenced Suit No 851 of 2013 for damages against three defendants, one of which is the Employer. | |
| Employer applied to strike out Suit 851. | |
| Commissioner wrote to Marican stating that the 20 May 2010 Letter was a valid claim under s 11(1) of the Act. | |
| Tan Lip Tiong Rodney filed Originating Summons No 265 of 2014. | |
| Commissioner wrote to Marican stating that the Injured Employee had no capacity to make a decision for himself. | |
| SBG Starkstrom Pte Ltd filed Originating Summons No 918 of 2014. | |
| Hearing on Originating Summonses. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Capacity to make a claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act
- Outcome: The court held that the next-of-kin of a mentally incapacitated employee do not have, without more, the requisite capacity to make a claim under the Act on behalf of the employee. Only a person duly appointed by the court under the Mental Capacity Act will have the legal capacity to do so.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether a next-of-kin, without being appointed a deputy under the Mental Capacity Act, can make a claim on behalf of a mentally incapacitated employee.
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 4 SLR 15
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
- Personal Injury
- Incapacity Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 15 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person must have the requisite legal capacity before he/she can make a decision on behalf of another. |
| Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission and another | N/A | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 147 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an ultra vires decision is a nullity. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Insurance Act (Cap 142, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mental Capacity Act
- Work Injury Compensation Act
- Deputy
- Commissioner of Labour
- Originating Summons
- Judicial Review
- Next-of-kin
- Notice of Assessment
- Legal Capacity
15.2 Keywords
- Work Injury
- Mental Capacity
- Judicial Review
- Commissioner of Labour
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Work Injury Compensation | 95 |
| Mental Capacity Law | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Judicial Review | 60 |
| Personal Injury | 40 |
| Criminal Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Work Injury Compensation
- Mental Capacity
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure