Minichit Bunhom v Jazali bin Kastari: Recovery of Medical Expenses for Foreign Worker in Negligence Claim

In Minichit Bunhom v Jazali bin Kastari and Ergo Insurance Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether a foreign worker, Minichit Bunhom, could recover medical expenses from a negligent driver, Jazali bin Kastari, when his employer was statutorily obligated to pay those expenses under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. The court allowed the appeal, holding that the employer's obligation does not preclude the foreign worker's right to recover medical expenses from the tortfeasor. The court directed that upon recovery of the medical expenses, Minichit Bunhom was to pay the sum over to his employer, KPW.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal 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

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses whether a foreign worker can recover medical expenses from a negligent driver when the employer is statutorily obligated to pay.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Minichit BunhomAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Jazali bin KastariRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Ergo Insurance Pte LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Felicia ChainLegal Clinic LLC
Simon YuenLegal Clinic LLC
Mahendra Prasad RaiCooma & Rai

4. Facts

  1. Minichit Bunhom, a foreign worker, was injured in a lorry accident caused by Jazali bin Kastari's negligence.
  2. The accident occurred in the course of Bunhom's employment.
  3. Bunhom incurred $15,682.97 in medical expenses at National University Hospital.
  4. Bunhom's employer, KPW Singapore Pte Ltd, initially paid the medical expenses.
  5. KPW and Bunhom had an agreement that Bunhom would claim the expenses from the negligent driver and repay KPW on a non-recourse basis.
  6. Ergo Insurance Pte Ltd, the motor insurance company for the negligent driver, intervened in the proceedings.
  7. The Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) requires employers to provide medical insurance for foreign employees.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Minichit Bunhom v Jazali bin Kastari and another, Civil Appeal No 26 of 2017, [2018] SGCA 22

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accident occurred due to first respondent’s negligence
Appellant filed a claim against the first respondent
Interlocutory judgment was granted in favour of the appellant
Second respondent obtained leave to intervene in the proceedings
Hearing for assessment of damages was heard before a Deputy Registrar of the State Courts
District Judge rendered her decision allowing the appeal in part
Oral judgment was delivered by the High Court Judge
Written grounds issued by the High Court Judge
Judge granted leave to the appellant to appeal against his decision to the Court of Appeal
Appellant filed a notice of appeal against the whole of the Judge’s decision
Court heard and allowed the appeal
Appellant’s counsel wrote in to the Court
Second respondent’s counsel wrote in to the Court

7. Legal Issues

  1. Recovery of Medical Expenses
    • Outcome: The court held that a foreign worker can recover medical expenses from a negligent third party, even if the employer is obligated to pay under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] SGHC 129
      • [2012] 1 SLR 751
  2. Double Recovery
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no material risk of double recovery for either the appellant or his employer.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for pain and suffering
  2. Medical expenses
  3. Other consequential loss and expenses

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Insurance Defense
  • Employment Disputes

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sun Delong v Teo Poh Soon and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 129SingaporeCited to support the argument that a tortfeasor should be responsible for loss arising from tortious conduct and that the EFMA does not preclude a victim-foreign employee from exercising rights against the tortfeasor.
Lee Chiang Theng v Public Prosecutor and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 751SingaporeCited by the second respondent to argue that the employer's obligations under the EFMA are non-delegable. The court distinguished this case, stating it concerned a criminal case and had no immediate relevance to the present appeal.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu LengCourt of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the standard of review in an appeal against the decision of a High Court judge on an assessment of damages.
Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng DavidCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 718SingaporeCited for the standard of review in an appeal against the decision of a High Court judge on an assessment of damages.
ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services)Court of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 1317SingaporeCited for the compensation principle, which prescribes that when a tortious wrong is committed by the defendant, the plaintiff ought to be put in the same position as if the tort had not been committed.
Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal CompanyHouse of LordsYes(1880) 5 App Cas 25United KingdomCited for the compensation principle.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 521SingaporeCited to define the term 'non-delegable' in tort law.
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1074SingaporeCited to define the term 'non-delegable' in tort law.
Donnelly v JoyceQueen's BenchYes[1974] 1 QB 454United KingdomCited to support the argument that the fact that the employer had paid the medical expenses should not change the characterisation of these expenses as the employee’s loss because the medical treatment was occasioned by the tortfeasor’s wrongdoing.
Ang Eng Lee and another v Lim Lye SoonCourt of AppealYes[1985-1986] SLR(R) 931SingaporeCited to support the argument that the fact that the employer had paid the medical expenses should not change the characterisation of these expenses as the employee’s loss because the medical treatment was occasioned by the tortfeasor’s wrongdoing.
Lim Kiat Boon & ors v Lim Seu Kong & anorHigh CourtYes[1980] 2 MLJ 39MalaysiaCited by the second respondent to support the argument that since the EFMA and the EFMR statutorily obliged KPW to pay for the appellant’s medical expenses, these expenses could not be recovered by the appellant against the first respondent. The court disagreed with this argument.
Ong Jin Choon v Lim Hin Hock and anotherHigh CourtYes[1988] 1 SLR(R) 559SingaporeCited to show that the distinction between gratuitous and obligated payments was applied in local decisions.
Lim Hin Hock v Ong Jin Choon and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 381SingaporeCited to show that the distinction between gratuitous and obligated payments was applied in local decisions.
Au Yeong Wing Loong v Chew Hai Ban and anotherHigh CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 290SingaporeCited to show that the distinction between gratuitous and obligated payments was applied in local decisions.
Lo Lee Len v Grand Interior Renovation Works Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principle as to deductibility of collateral benefits at common law.
The MARACourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR(R) 31SingaporeCited for the exceptions to the rule against double recovery.
Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of India and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1308SingaporeCited for the general principles on the award of pre-judgment interest.
Browning v The War Office & anorCourt of AppealYes[1963] 1 QB 750 CAUnited KingdomCited to support the argument that a plaintiff who had been paid his wages as of right by his employer during his incapacity could not claim again the self-same wages from the tortfeasor but must instead give credit for the wages that he had received. The court disagreed with this argument.
Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District v Croydon CorpQueen's BenchYes[1957] 2 QB 154United KingdomCited to support the argument that if an employer was statutorily obliged to pay a victim-employee his wages whether he was fit for duty or not, the victim-employee would have suffered no loss in relation to the wages and could recover no damages in this regard from the tortfeasor. The court disagreed with this argument.
Hunt v SeversHouse of LordsYes[1994] 2 AC 350United KingdomCited as overruling Donnelly v Joyce.
Minichit Bunhom v Jazali bin Kastari and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 608SingaporeThe High Court decision that was appealed in this case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Foreign worker
  • Medical expenses
  • Negligence
  • Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
  • Non-delegable duty
  • Double recovery
  • Non-recourse loan
  • Collateral benefits

15.2 Keywords

  • Foreign worker
  • Medical expenses
  • Negligence
  • Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
  • Singapore
  • Personal Injury

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Torts90
Negligence80
Medical Expenses75
Personal Injury70
Automobile Accidents60
Foreign Employee55
Employment Law50
Employers’ duties45
Civil Procedure40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Employment Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Personal Injury