MST Ruma Khatun v T & Zee Engineering: Work Injury Compensation & Insurer Liability

In MST Ruma Khatun v T & Zee Engineering Pte Ltd and Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by MST Ruma Khatun, next-of-kin of the deceased Rahman Azizur, against the decision of an Assistant Commissioner for Labour regarding a claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act. The Assistant Commissioner had ruled that Liberty Insurance was not liable for the claim. Woo Bih Li J allowed the appeal, setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's decision, finding that the Assistant Commissioner had wrongly exercised her discretion in allowing Liberty to raise the 'Tiler Objection' outside of the prescribed period.

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 Work Injury Compensation Act claim. The court allowed the appeal, finding the insurer liable due to improper late objection.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Liberty Insurance Pte LtdRespondentCorporationLostLost
MST Ruma KhatunApplicantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
T & Zee Engineering Pte LtdRespondentCorporationNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Daniel LohBernard & Rada Law Corporation
Adnaan NoorBernard & Rada Law Corporation
Amerjeet SinghCrossBorders LLC
Teo Ying YingCrossBorders LLC
M NedumaranM/s M Nedumaran & Co

4. Facts

  1. The Worker was found dead at a worksite on 2 October 2013.
  2. T & Zee submitted an incident report to MOM on 6 October 2013, stating the Worker's occupation as 'Electrical Worker'.
  3. MOM issued a notice of assessment stating compensation payable was $170,000.
  4. Liberty filed a notice of objection on 20 March 2015, citing the Worker was not an employee of T & Zee.
  5. Liberty raised additional objections (Tiler Objection, Headcount Objection) orally at PHCs and the hearing.
  6. The Assistant Commissioner allowed Liberty to raise the Tiler Objection late.
  7. The Assistant Commissioner concluded Liberty was entitled to repudiate liability based on the Tiler Objection.

5. Formal Citations

  1. MST Ruma Khatun v T & Zee Engineering Pte Ltd and another, Tribunal Appeal No 13 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 115

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Worker found dead at worksite
T & Zee submitted online incident report to MOM
Notice of assessment sent out
Notice of assessment stated to be served
Liberty filed written notice of objection
T & Zee filed notice of objection
Parties attended first pre-hearing conference
Liberty raised additional grounds of objections orally
Liberty raised additional grounds of objections orally
Liberty raised additional grounds of objections orally
Liberty applied to hear a preliminary issue
Second tranche of hearing took place
Second tranche of hearing took place
AC issued written grounds of decision and certificate of order
Appellant filed originating summons
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Discretion to Allow Late Objections
    • Outcome: The court held that the Assistant Commissioner wrongly exercised her discretion in allowing Liberty to raise the Tiler Objection outside of the prescribed period.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Extension of time for objections
      • Admissibility of oral objections
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 4 SLR 1065
      • HC/OS 883/2011/H
  2. Insurer's Liability under WICA
    • Outcome: The court found that the insurer, Liberty Insurance, was liable under the policy, setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's decision.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Policy coverage
      • Employee status
  3. Calculation of Time for Appeal
    • Outcome: The court determined that even if the appeal was filed out of time, an extension of time would be granted.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act

9. Cause of Actions

  • Work Injury Compensation Claim

10. Practice Areas

  • Work Injury Compensation
  • Insurance Litigation
  • Civil Appeals

11. Industries

  • Engineering
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Goh Yee Lan Coreena and others v P & P Security Services Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 1065SingaporeDistinguished regarding the ability to raise objections after the prescribed period under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitN/AYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the four factors to be considered for an extension of time.
Next-of-Kin of Tian Wei v EQ InsuranceHigh CourtYesHC/OS 883/2011/HSingaporeDiscussed regarding the Commissioner's discretion to extend the objection period under the Work Injury Compensation Act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 55, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322)
Order 55 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)
Order 55 r 3(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 55 r 3(3) of the Rules of Court
Order 55 r 3(4) of the Rules of Court
O 1 r 9(6) of the Rules of Court
O 1 r 4(2) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354)Singapore
Section 29(1) of the Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354)Singapore
Section 2A of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 3(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 7 of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 12(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 23(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 24(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 24(2) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 24(3) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 25(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 25(2) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 25B of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 25D of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore
Section 32(1) of the Work Injury Compensation ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Work Injury Compensation Act
  • Notice of Assessment
  • Objection
  • Assistant Commissioner for Labour
  • Tiler Objection
  • Employee Objection
  • Headcount Objection
  • Incident Report
  • Pre-Hearing Conference
  • Policy Coverage
  • Locus Standi

15.2 Keywords

  • Work Injury Compensation
  • Insurance Liability
  • Late Objection
  • Rules of Court
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Work Injury Compensation95
Employment Law70
Insurance50

16. Subjects

  • Work Injury
  • Insurance
  • Civil Procedure