Skip to content
laws.sgby aturio
Grounds publishedDecided 23 Oct 2009
Contents

High Court

Wu Yow Ngan and another (trading as Chia Seng Sheo Phoor Fruits) v An Feng Li

Feedback & support

[2009] SGHC 239Case no. DC Suit 608/2009, RAS 92/20097 paragraphs

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

  1. Tan Lee Meng J:

  2. [2] The appellants are in the fruit business and they employed An, a Chinese citizen aged 39, as a sales assistant at their shop at 279A Queen Street #01-220 (“the premises”) in July 2007.

  3. [3] According to An, his employment agents arranged for him to stay in a second storey dormitory room in a shop house in Katong when he first arrived in Singapore. He claimed that he was instructed by the appellants to move from his room in Katong to the premises in December 2007. He slept on a make-shift bed in the storage area of the premises, where numerous cartons of fruits were stacked up two metres high. His make-shift bed was a timber board, supported by a number of stools. The bed had to be dismantled and stored in the morning.

  4. [4] An alleged that at around 11.45 pm on 4 December 2008, three to four cartons of fruits fell on his head while he was sleeping on his make-shift bed (“the accident”). He said that his co-worker, one Mr Wang Xian Tieng, took him to the emergency department of Tan Tock Seng Hospital (“TTSH”) as he had a headache and was feeling giddy. He was given medical leave from 5 to 9 December 2008. On 27 December 2008, he went back to TTSH as he suffered from persistent headaches and nausea. Subsequently, he went back to TTSH on three other occasions to complain about his headaches and nausea.

  5. [5] On 13 January 2009, the appellants sent An back to China. They claimed that after the accident, An had demanded compensation from them and had threatened to kill their son if his demand was not met.

  6. [6] On 23 February 2009, An commenced proceedings against the appellants for negligence in failing to provide him with a safe and proper place of residence.

  7. The decision of the court

  8. [10] As for what factors are relevant in the exercise of the court’s discretion, in Porzelack Kg v Porzelack (UK) [1987] 1 All ER 1074 at 1077, Browne- Wilkinson VC explained that the question is “what in all the circumstances of the case is the just answer”.

  9. [11] In Omar Ali bin Mohd v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir Alhadad [1995] 3 SLR 388 (“Omar Ali”), Chao Hick Tin J stated as follows at [18]: