https://twc2.org.sg/2019/09/05/high-court-says-moms-assistant-commissioner-had-a-fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-work-injury-law/

On 29 May 2019, the High Court reversed the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour in a Work Injury Compensation case.

In this case, the worker, Abu Samad bin Omar, 62, died of a heart attack while at work. The claimants were his next-of-kin. The Assistant Commissioner at the Ministry of Manpower had earlier ruled that the claimants “failed to establish the causal link between the heart attack and the Deceased’s employment.”

The High Court said that in placing the burden of proof on the claimants, the Assistant Commissioner displayed a “fundamental misunderstanding”, and his decision contained “a substantial error of law on the part of the Assistant Commissioner” (paragraph 45 of the judgement).

—

Abu Samad went to work as usual on 19 July 2017. He was employed by Colex Environmental Pte Ltd as a driver. At about 9:30am, Abu Samad went to a shed to help three colleagues dismantle wheels from bins. Helping out was apparently a regular occurrence. Abu Samad “commonly volunteered for bin duty, and … the employers knew about his volunteering” (paragraph 36 of the judgement).

He collapsed and died soon after of a heart attack. Doctors told the court that he had had ischaemic heart disease and that he could die at any moment “be it at rest, or with physical exertion” (paragraph 47).

—

Did this incident come within the scope of the Work Injury Compensation Act? Would the family be entitled to compensation?

Justice Chan Seng Onn recalled previous judgements which had set out three necessary elements. In paragraph 27, he cited them:

(a) the workman has suffered a personal injury (the “first requirement”);

(b) the injury has been caused by an accident (the “second requirement”); and

(c) the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment (the “third requirement”).

Justice Chan said that the first element was easily satisfied. Abu Samad suffered a personal injury: he died.

As for the second element, he said in paragraphs 31(a) and (b) that it too was satisfied:

31(a) First, in assessing whether an event is an accident within the meaning of the Act, it is material to consider this from the point of view of the workman and not from the point of view of one with actual knowledge of the circumstances including any pre-existing medical conditions.

(references in the original to other cases and quotation marks stripped)

Then, in paragraph 31(b):

31(b) This reading is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “accident”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an accident as an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. An accident is basically an unexpected mishap that happens by chance and is unintentional in nature.

The third requirement is more subtle. The injury has to arise out of and in the course of the worker’s employment. “In the course of” is easier to comprehend. Even so, the judge expanded on it by saying in paragraph 35, with references and quotation marks stripped:

In this regard, WICA is a social legislation which should be interpreted purposively in favour of employees who have suffered injury during their employment. Broadly, a simple test would be whether the accident occurred, as a matter of common sense, while the employee was at work.