MTM Ship Management v Devaswarupa: Work Injury Compensation & Seafarer Death Benefits
MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd appealed against the Commissioner for Labour's decision to order them to pay compensation to Devaswarupa, V Bharathy, G Darshita, and Gainady Lokansh, the next-of-kin of Mr. Gainady, a deceased seafarer. The High Court of Singapore, General Division, heard the appeal on 17 March, 28 April, and 27 July 2022. The primary legal issue was whether a private settlement between the employer and the seafarer's dependants bars them from receiving compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA). The court allowed the appeal, holding that the settlement payment should be taken into account, resulting in no further compensation payable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding compensation for a seafarer's death. The court considered the interplay between WICA and MLCA, and private settlements.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Ng Yuhui, Chan Zijian Boaz |
| Devaswarupa | Respondent | Individual | No further compensation payable | Lost | |
| V Bharathy | Respondent | Individual | No further compensation payable | Lost | |
| G Darshita | Respondent | Individual | No further compensation payable | Lost | |
| Gainady Lokansh | Respondent | Individual | No further compensation payable | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Yuhui | Incisive Law LLC |
| Chan Zijian Boaz | Incisive Law LLC |
| Tan Tian Hui | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd managed the vessel “STRATEGIC EQUITY”.
- Mr Gainady was employed by MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd and served onboard the vessel.
- Mr Gainady met with an accident at the port of Rosario, Argentina on 13 August 2020.
- Mr Gainady was struck by a mooring rope and passed away shortly after on 14 August 2020.
- The first and second respondents were nominated as Mr Gainady’s beneficiaries.
- MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd paid the first and second respondents US$72,000 each.
- The first and second respondents executed a Deed of Receipt, Release, Discharge & Indemnity Agreement.
- The respondents lodged a claim with the Commissioner under the WICA 2009.
- The Commissioner issued a Certificate of Order ordering MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd to pay compensation.
5. Formal Citations
- MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd v Devaswarupa and others, Tribunal Appeal No 8 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 178
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accident occurred at the port of Rosario, Argentina | |
| Mr Gainady passed away | |
| Deed of Receipt, Release, Discharge & Indemnity Agreement executed | |
| Respondents lodged a claim with the Commissioner under the WICA 2009 | |
| Commissioner issued a notice of assessment of compensation | |
| Notice of Assessment received by the first respondent | |
| First respondent raised an objection to the Notice of Assessment | |
| Applicant informed the Commissioner of Mr Gainady’s correct average monthly earnings | |
| Certificate of Order issued ordering the applicant to pay compensation | |
| Applicant highlighted that it had reached a settlement with the respondents | |
| Mr Lim replied to the applicant’s e-mail stating that the Commissioner would not be withdrawing the Certificate of Order | |
| Applicant reiterated its request for the Certificate of Order to be withdrawn | |
| Applicant filed the present appeal | |
| Grounds of decision issued | |
| Hearing | |
| Oral grounds delivered | |
| Full grounds of decision provided |
7. Legal Issues
- Right of appeal on substantial question of law
- Outcome: The court found that a substantial question of law arose on the present facts, and that the applicant was entitled to appeal against the decision of the Commissioner.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 5 SLR 509
- [2012] 1 SLR 15
- [2014] 1 SLR 189
- Whether private settlement reached by seafarer’s dependants with employer is a bar to receiving compensation under WICA
- Outcome: The court held that the settlement payment should be taken into account, resulting in no further compensation payable.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 3 SLR 648
- Whether Commissioner for Labour is empowered to take into account private settlement when assessing compensation
- Outcome: The court found that the Commissioner is empowered under s 9(1A)(b) of the WICA 2009 to take into account settlement payments when assessing the sum of compensation payable.
- Category: Substantive
- Interaction between WICA regime and Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014
- Outcome: The court did not make a specific finding on whether a settlement payment to a deceased seaman’s next-of-kin can be characterised as a payment of compensation under the MLCA 2014 regime.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for the Deed to be recorded as a settlement agreement
- Declaration that the applicant is discharged from its obligation to make payment under the Certificate of Order
- Order for the Certificate of Order to be set aside
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act
10. Practice Areas
- Compensation Claims
- Personal Injury
- Shipping
- Maritime Labour
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 648 | Singapore | Cited to establish that the WICA regime provides an alternative remedy to common law damages. |
| Arpah bte Sabar and others v Colex Environmental Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 509 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of what constitutes a substantial question of law. |
| Pang Chew Kim (next of kin of Poon Wai Tong, deceased) v Wartsila Singapore Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 15 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the issues on appeal raised substantial questions of law, partly because the issues to be determined involved a statutory interpretation of s 3(1) of the WICA 2009. |
| Kee Yau Chong v S H Interdeco Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 189 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the appeal involved a substantial question of law, as one of the main points in contention pertained to how the terms “accident” and “arising out of and in the course of employment” under ss 3(1) and 3(6) of the WICA 2009 should be interpreted. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament does not legislate in vain, and the courts should therefore endeavour to give significance to every word in a statutory provision. |
| Hauque Enamul v China Taiping Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 485 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appeal coming before the court by way of a rehearing. |
| Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1988] AC 514 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that any financial gain that would not have accrued to the plaintiff, but for the injury sustained by the plaintiff, would prima facie be deducted from the sum of damages payable. |
| The “MARA” | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 31 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of deductibility in common law claims. |
| Williams v BOC Gases Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] All ER (D) 422 | England and Wales | Cited for the observation that the principle of deductibility encourages employers to make benevolent payments in future to injured employees, rather than the reverse. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Work Injury Compensation Act 2019 (Act 27 of 2019) | Singapore |
| Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014 (Act 6 of 2014) | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the WICA 2009 | Singapore |
| s 63(1) of the WICA 2019 | Singapore |
| s 29(2A) of the WICA 2009 | Singapore |
| s 58(1) of the WICA 2019 | Singapore |
| s 9(1A)(b) of the WICA 2009 | Singapore |
| s 51(2) of the WICA 2019 | Singapore |
| s 20(e) of the WICA 2009 | Singapore |
| s 20(f) of the WICA 2009 | Singapore |
| s 67(2) of the WICA 2019 | Singapore |
| s 67(3) of the WICA 2019 | Singapore |
| s 54(1)(c) of the WICA 2019 | Singapore |
| s 84(2) of the WICA 2019 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Work Injury Compensation Act
- Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act
- Settlement Payment
- Certificate of Order
- SOS CBA
- Commissioner for Labour
- Functus Officio
- Substantial Question of Law
- Principle of Deductibility
15.2 Keywords
- Work Injury Compensation
- Seafarer
- Death
- Settlement
- Appeal
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Employment
- Shipping
- Compensation
17. Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Work Injury Compensation
- Admiralty and Shipping
- Maritime Law
- Statutory Interpretation