Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture: Appeal Dismissed for Workplace Injury Claim
In Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed an appeal on March 10, 2021, concerning a workplace injury claim. Munshi Rasal, the appellant, sued Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd, the respondent, for negligence and breach of statutory duties after sustaining injuries at work. The court found that the appellant failed to obtain the necessary leave to appeal and that the appeal lacked merit, as the evidence supported the lower court's findings that the respondent was not negligent. The court ordered the appellant's counsel, Mr. Subbiah Pillai, to bear the costs of the appeal personally.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed in workplace injury case due to failure to obtain leave and lack of merit. The court found no negligence by the employer.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Munshi Rasal | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Subbiah Pillai |
| Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Appoo Ramesh, Vinodhan Gunasekaran |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Subbiah Pillai | Tan & Pillai |
| Appoo Ramesh | Just Law LLC |
| Vinodhan Gunasekaran | Just Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The appellant, a Bangladeshi worker, was employed by the respondent.
- On June 28, 2015, the appellant's hand was caught in a wood laminating machine.
- The appellant sustained fractures to his thumb and two fingers.
- The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded the appellant $43,464.88 in compensation.
- The appellant sued the respondent for negligence and breach of statutory duties.
- The appellant's claim was initially filed in the High Court but transferred to the District Court.
- The appellant did not seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 75 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant's hand caught in machine rollers, resulting in injuries | |
| District Court Appeal No 20 of 2019 | |
| District Judge held that the respondent did not act negligently towards the appellant | |
| High Court Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal | |
| Civil Appeal No 75 of 2020 filed | |
| Court of Appeal hearing | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found no negligence on the part of the respondent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Failure to provide a safe system of work
- Inadequate supervision and training
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGDC 172
- [2020] SGHC 69
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that leave to appeal was required but not obtained, rendering the appeal invalid.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 659
- Personal Liability of Solicitor for Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered the appellant's counsel, Mr. Pillai, to bear the costs of the appeal personally due to his improper and unreasonable conduct.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1994] Ch 205
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220
- [2018] 2 SLR 532
- [2018] 1 SLR 1
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Statutory Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Personal Injury
- Workplace Safety
11. Industries
- Furniture Decoration
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 172 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge's decision that the respondent did not act negligently towards the appellant. |
| Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 69 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court Judge's decision dismissing the appellant's appeal. |
| Fong Khim Ling (administrator of the estate of Fong Ching Pau Lloyd, deceased) v Tan Teck Ann | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that the amount in dispute at the hearing before the High Court is relevant for jurisdictional purposes under s 34(2)(a) of the SCJA. |
| Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority and another application | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 558 | Singapore | Cited to explain the legislative intention behind the leave requirement in s 34(2)(a) of the 2020 SCJA. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions laid down for granting leave to appeal. |
| Zhou Tong and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 534 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the vulnerability of unsophisticated clients and the responsibilities of their solicitors. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England and Wales | Cited for the three-step test to determine whether to order costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the Ridehalgh v Horsefield three-step test for personal costs orders against solicitors. |
| Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the Ridehalgh v Horsefield three-step test for personal costs orders against solicitors. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 532 | Singapore | Cited for the situations in which a solicitor might be regarded as having acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently so as to warrant a personal costs order. |
| Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited as an example where a solicitor advanced a wholly disingenuous case, warranting a personal costs order. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Workplace accident
- Wood laminating machine
- Negligence
- Breach of duty of care
- Leave to appeal
- Personal liability for costs
- Workplace Safety and Health Act
- Rules of Court
- Vulnerable client
- Unmeritorious appeal
15.2 Keywords
- workplace injury
- negligence
- appeal
- costs
- solicitor liability
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Workplace Safety
- Appeals
- Costs
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Tort
- Negligence
- Workplace Safety and Health Law
- Personal Injury Law