Goh Yee Lan Coreena v P & P Security Services: Work Injury Compensation Act Appeal

Goh Yee Lan Coreena, Daniel Goh Kiang Chong, and Yang Mei Chee, the plaintiffs, appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the Assistant Commissioner's decision to schedule a hearing in a work injury compensation claim against P & P Security Services Pte Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that the Commissioner's assessment had become a binding order due to the defendant's failure to file a valid objection under the Work Injury Compensation Act. Chua Lee Ming JC allowed the appeal, declaring that the assessment had the effect of an order for payment, as the defendant did not file a valid objection within the prescribed time.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a work injury compensation claim. The court held that the assessment became an order for payment as the employer failed to file a valid objection.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Goh Yee Lan CoreenaPlaintiffIndividualAppeal AllowedWonJohnny Chu Chang Yee, Michael Hwang
Daniel Goh Kiang ChongPlaintiffIndividualAppeal AllowedWonJohnny Chu Chang Yee, Michael Hwang
Yang Mei CheePlaintiffIndividualAppeal AllowedWonJohnny Chu Chang Yee, Michael Hwang
P & P Security Services Pte LtdDefendantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostBhargavan Sujatha, R Dilip Kumar

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Johnny Chu Chang YeeVicki Heng Law Corporation
Michael HwangVicki Heng Law Corporation
Bhargavan SujathaGavan Law Practice LLC
R Dilip KumarGavan Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Goh Yoke Lin, a security guard employed by the defendant, felt unwell at work and died.
  2. The Commissioner for Labour assessed compensation of $137,759.04 under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
  3. The defendant's insurer, AXA, filed an objection to the assessment, but later disclaimed liability.
  4. The defendant did not file a separate objection within the prescribed 14-day period.
  5. The defendant orally alleged the deceased's death was due to sex enhancing pills, later withdrawn.
  6. The defendant later claimed the death was due to a mysterious massive blood loss.
  7. The plaintiffs appealed against the Assistant Commissioner's decision to schedule a hearing.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goh Yee Lan Coreena and others v P & P Security Services Pte Ltd, , [2016] SGHC 141

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Deceased felt unwell while at work
Deceased passed away
Autopsy carried out
Forensic pathologist opined on cause of death
Defendant submitted Work Injury Compensation Claim Form to AXA
Assessment sent out
AXA filed objection
Pre-hearing conference held
Assistant Commissioner excused AXA from participation
Defendant withdrew allegation of sex enhancing drugs
Defendant obtained report from Dr Goh Yew Seong
Pre-hearing conference held; hearing scheduled
Notice of Hearing issued
Plaintiffs filed appeal
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Objection under Work Injury Compensation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant's objection was invalid, and the Commissioner's assessment became a binding order for payment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to file objection in prescribed form
      • Objection filed by insurer not considered as objection by employer
      • Failure to state precise grounds of objection

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Compensation for work-related injury

9. Cause of Actions

  • Work Injury Compensation Claim

10. Practice Areas

  • Employment Law
  • Work Injury Compensation

11. Industries

  • Security Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Ltd and another v Next of kin of Narayasamy s/o Ramasamy, deceasedHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 507SingaporeCited for the liberal interpretation of 'accident' under the Work Injury Compensation Act, including internal medical conditions.
Pang Chew Kim (next of kin of Poon Wai Tong, deceased) v Wartsila Singapore Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 15SingaporeCited for the liberal interpretation of 'accident' under the Work Injury Compensation Act and the purposive interpretation of the WICA in favor of employees.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 55 Rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
Order 55 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 24(3) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 3(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 23 of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 32 of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 24 of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 25 of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 25D of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 24(3B) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 29(2A) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 3(6) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 24(4) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 28A(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 29(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Work Injury Compensation Act
  • Notice of Assessment
  • Objection
  • Commissioner for Labour
  • Insurer
  • Subrogation
  • Accident arising out of and in the course of employment

15.2 Keywords

  • Work Injury Compensation Act
  • Objection
  • Assessment
  • Insurer
  • Appeal
  • Employment Law

16. Subjects

  • Work Injury Compensation
  • Employment Law
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Employment Law
  • Work Injury Compensation Act