Vadivel Ramesh and Another v Aegis Equipment Pte Ltd and Another

[1] This matter came before me on appeal from a District Judge’s decision. The District Judge had affirmed an order of a Deputy Registrar striking out the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant. After I dismissed the appeal, the plaintiff could not appeal further to the Court of Appeal without leave from the High Court or the Court of Appeal. After I declined to give leave, an application has been made to the Court of Appeal for that purpose.

[2] This is a tale of an industrial accident injury claim under the common law that cannot get going. The claim was filed in the District Courts as DC Suit No. 2264/2000V ("the action").

[3] The facts are not complicated –

[4] The application to strike out the claim against the second defendant was made on 5 August 2002, before the decision in Chua Ah Beng’s case was delivered on 30 August 2002 and before the Commissioner’s letter of 3 September 2002.

[5] The application was made in reliance on an unreported case of Rahenah binte L Mande v Baxter Healthcare Pte Ltd in which Judith Prakash J made her decision on 20 September 2001 and delivered the grounds of decision on 21 August 2002.

[6] An issue before the judge was whether under s 33(2)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a claim for compensation was a bar to the commencement of a common law action.

[7] Sections 33(1) and (2) read

[8] Prakash J referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Ying Tai Plastic & Metal Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd v Zahrin bin Rabu [1982-1983] SLR 117 where the question was addressed. F A Chua J delivering the judgment of the Court held at p 121

and she held at para 16 that

[9] She continued at para 18 that the withdrawal must be expressly notified to the Commissioner and that it was not enough that the claimant formed the intention not to proceed with the claim.

[10] It has also been made clear that a claim is not considered withdrawn when the claimant allows it to be dormant. Tay Yong Kwang JC (as he then was) held in Chua Ah Beng v Commissioner for Labour [2002] 4 SLR 854 at para 38 that

[11] In the light of the decisions in Ying Tai Plastic, Chua Ah Beng and Rahenah, all of which I humbly agree with, the plaintiff, having made his claim for compensation, cannot maintain his action under the common law without first withdrawing the compensation claim.

[12] Even if he or his solicitors were not aware of the decisions, they were advised of the correct position by the Commissioner’s letter of 3 September 2002. At that time steps could have been taken to withdraw the claim for compensation and to file a fresh common law action, but the plaintiff did not withdraw his claim and elected simply to continue with the action. Now he is in a less satisfactory position as the common law action may be time-barred. He may be left with only the compensation claim to look to, but that is the result of his own inaction.

[13] I do not see why the clearly established position should be changed to allow the plaintiff to continue with his action. It appears to me that a further appeal to have the question argued for the fourth time is unlikely to bring about a different outcome.