PP v Jurong Country Club: CPFA, Employee Definition & CPF Contribution

The Public Prosecutor appealed against the District Judge's decision in [2018] SGDC 314. Jurong Country Club (JCC) was convicted of four charges under s 7(1) read with s 58(b) of the Central Provident Fund Act (CPFA). JCC appealed against its conviction, and the Prosecution appealed against the District Judge’s dismissal of its application for payment of arrears in contributions and interest under s 61B(1) CPFA. The High Court allowed JCC’s appeal, acquitting it of the four charges, and dismissed the Prosecution’s appeal, finding that Mr Mohamed Yusoff Bin Hashim was an independent contractor, not an employee of JCC.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Jurong Country Club's conviction for failing to pay CPF contributions was overturned as the High Court found Yusoff was an independent contractor.

1.7 Decision Date

11 June 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant, Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lim Jian Yi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wu Yu Jie of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jurong Country Club	Respondent, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Ang Si Yi of Drew & Napier LLC Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy SC of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
See Kee Oon	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lim Jian Yi	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Wu Yu Jie	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ang Si Yi	Drew & Napier LLC
Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy SC	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Yusoff was employed by JCCL as a gym instructor from 1991.
In 1998, JCCL purportedly converted Yusoff's status to that of an independent contractor.
From 2003 to 2016, JCC treated Yusoff as an independent contractor and did not make CPF contributions on his behalf.
Yusoff was the only gym instructor at JCC until 2014.
Investigations began in 2016 after Yusoff approached the CPF Board to enquire about CPF contributions.
JCC was convicted of four charges under s 7(1) read with s 58(b) of the CPFA at the close of its trial.
The District Judge declined to grant the order for payment of arrears in CPF contributions and interest due under s 61B(1) CPFA sought by the Prosecution.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Jurong Country Club and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeal No 10 of 2018/01 and 02, [2019] SGHC 150

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1991-02-01	Yusoff employed by JCCL as gym instructor
1998-11-01	JCCL purportedly converted Yusoff's status to independent contractor
2003-12-01	JCC took over the business of JCCL
2014-08-01	DW5 engaged as assistant gym instructor
2014-12-01	DW5's engagement as assistant gym instructor ended
2016-01-01	Investigations began after Yusoff approached the CPF Board
2016-12-31	JCC ceased operations
2018-01-01	District Judge's decision issued
2019-04-03	Hearing of the appeals
2019-06-12	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Definition of Employee under CPFA
- Outcome: The High Court held that Yusoff was an independent contractor, not an employee, and therefore JCC was not required to make CPF contributions on his behalf.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Contract of service vs. contract for service
  - Control
  - Mutuality of obligations
  - Personal service
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] SGHC 113
  - [2014] 4 SLR 931
  - [2001] IRLR 269
  - [1968] 2 QB 497
  - [1978] 1 WLR 676
  - [2018] 1 SLR 180
  - [2016] 2 SLR 793
  - [2017] SGHC 53
  - [2011] 4 All ER 745
  - [2007] IRLR 560
  - [1969] 2 QB 173
Strict Liability under s 58(b) CPFA
- Outcome: The High Court held that s 58(b) CPFA is a strict liability offence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2002] 2 SLR(R) 122
  - [1985] 1 AC 1
  - [2017] 5 SLR 997
  - [1970] AC 132
  - [2002] 2 SLR(R) 566
  - [2003] 2 SLR(R) 67
Scope of s 61B(1) CPFA Order
- Outcome: The High Court held that s 61B(1) CPFA allows the court to order the payment of any contributions due at the date of conviction, whether or not these were the subject of the charges preferred.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 5 SLR 438
  - [2014] 3 SLR 299
  - [2017] 2 SLR 850
  - [1995] 1 MLJ 371

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction of the Respondent
Payment of arrears in contributions and interest

9. Cause of Actions

Failure to pay Central Provident Fund contributions

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Regulatory Offences
Employment Law

11. Industries

Recreation
Sports

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Jurong Country Club	District Court	Yes	[2018] SGDC 314	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from.
Kureoka Enterprise Pte Ltd v Central Provident Fund Board	High Court	Yes	[1992] SGHC 113	Singapore	Cited for the multi-faceted test to determine whether a person is an employee.
BNM (administratrix of the estate of B, deceased) on her own behalf and on behalf of others v National University of Singapore and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 931	Singapore	Cited for the principle that control may not be the only, or decisive, factor in determining whether a person is an employee.
Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd	Employment Appeal Tribunal	Yes	[2001] IRLR 269	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it suffices for the employer to have no more than a 'very general idea' of how the work is done, although some sufficient framework of control must exist.
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1968] 2 QB 497	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a declaration by the parties as to the nature of their relationship may be helpful where it is doubtful what rights and duties the parties wished to provide for.
Massey v Crown Life Insurance	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1978] 1 WLR 676	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that where the parties’ relationship is ambiguous and capable of being one or the other, this ambiguity can be removed by the agreement they made, which becomes the best material from which to determine the true legal relationship between them.
Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 180	Singapore	Cited for the principle that subsequent conduct is only relevant where it provides cogent evidence of the parties’ agreement at the time when the contract was concluded.
Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 438	Singapore	Cited for the principles on compensation orders.
Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 299	Singapore	Cited for the principles on compensation orders.
Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1969] 2 QB 173	England and Wales	Cited for the approach to determine whether a person is an employee.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd and others (King Wan Construction Pte Ltd and others, third parties)	High Court	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 793	Singapore	Cited as an authority that is not inconsistent with the approach in Ready Mixed Concrete.
National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Cicada Cube Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 53	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is no single, general test that is determinative of whether a person is an employee, or a mere contractor or supplier for services.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others	Supreme Court	Yes	[2011] 4 All ER 745	United Kingdom	Cited for the propositions that where employment contracts are concerned, the relative bargaining powers of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed, and that the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case.
Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak	Employment Appeal Tribunal	Yes	[2007] IRLR 560	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the mere fact that a right conferred has not been exercised does not render the right meaningless where the clause reflects what might realistically be expected to occur.
Tan Cheng Kwee v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 122	Singapore	Cited for the presumption that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of any statutory provision that creates an offence.
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong	Privy Council	Yes	[1985] 1 AC 1	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the presumption of mens rea may be rebutted and displaced where strict liability will be effective in promoting the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.
Chua Hock Soon James v Public Prosecutor and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 997	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it must be shown that accused persons can do something to avoid committing the offence.
Sweet v Parsley	House of Lords	Yes	[1970] AC 132	United Kingdom	Cited for the test of whether steps could be taken to promote the observance of the obligation.
Chng Wei Meng v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 566	Singapore	Cited for contrasting a “truly criminal” offence with one that is regulatory in nature.
Comfort Management Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 67	Singapore	Cited for the principle that whether the offence carries social stigma is relevant in determining whether it is “truly criminal” in nature.
Public Prosecutor v KATS Cleaning Services (S) Sdn Bhd	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 MLJ 371	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the provision unambiguously refers to “any contributions”, and is not restricted to the offences for which there has been a finding of guilt.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited for distinguishing between the specific purpose underlying a particular provision and the general purpose underlying the statute.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) s 2(1)	Singapore
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) s 7(1)	Singapore
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) s 58(b)	Singapore
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) s 61B(1)	Singapore
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) s 66A	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 359	Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6(1)(d)	Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 33(1)	Singapore
Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Central Provident Fund
CPF contributions
Employee
Independent contractor
Contract of service
Contract for service
Strict liability
Arrears
Mutuality of obligations
Control

15.2 Keywords

Central Provident Fund
CPF
Employee
Independent Contractor
Employment Law
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Central Provident Fund Act	90
Employment Law	80
Criminal Law	70
Statutory Interpretation	50
Contract Law	40
Contracts	40
Administrative Law	30
Company Law	30
Workers Compensation	30
Banking and Finance	20
Banking Law	20

16. Subjects

Employment Law
Central Provident Fund
Criminal Law