- January 5, 2023
- Posted by: Sage Shield Safety Consultants
- Category: Safety Highlights, Singapore Safety News
1. Singapore district court ruled that employer cannot use waiver signed by injured worker to avoid negligence liability
2. Mr Azmi Muda suffered serious head injuries in workplace accident in April 2018
3. Waiver he signed in exchange for $1,300 was found to be invalid due to insufficient consideration
4. Company found to be negligent in its duty of care towards Mr Azmi and held liable for injuries
5. Company had hired worker prior to submitting application for work permit
6. Internal investigation report created by defendant was false
7. Report indicated worker had been instructed to begin work on April 16, when in reality it was April 12
8. Report was created to hide defendant’s breach for not submitting permit application in a timely manner
9. Defendant attempted to use false report to argue they were not responsible for worker’s accident
10. Court found that company was liable for worker’s injury due to negligence.
The court found that the company was negligent in its duty of care towards Mr Azmi and accordingly held it liable for his injuries. A Singapore district court has ruled that an employer cannot use a waiver signed by an injured worker to avoid liability for negligence. The case involved Mr Azmi Muda, who had suffered serious head injuries in a workplace accident in April 2018. During a visit by three company representatives, Mr Azmi was presented with a waiver, which he signed in exchange for $1,300. However, Judge Jonathan Toh ruled that the payment was not sufficient consideration and thus the waiver was not legally binding. The court determined that the company had been negligent in its duty of care towards Mr Azmi and was held liable for his injuries.
The court observed that the company had hired the worker prior to submitting an application for his work permit. Furthermore, the judge found that the internal investigation report created by the defendant was false in that it indicated the employee had undergone an interview on April 12, 2018 and been instructed to begin work on April 16. This date was not only the day of the accident, but also the day the company made an application to the Manpower Ministry for in–principle approval for the worker‘s permit. In reality, the job interview was held on April 11 and the employee began work on April 12. The report was created to hide the defendant‘s breach of not submitting the permit application in a timely manner and for hiring the worker before the permit was obtained. The defendant then attempted to use the false report to argue that they were not responsible for the worker‘s accident.