Case Details
- Citation: [2012] SGHC 251
- Case Title: Shaik Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Sukol v Saag Oilfield Engineering (S) Pte Ltd and another
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Decision Date: 18 December 2012
- Coram: Lee Seiu Kin J
- Case Number: Suit No 717 of 2009
- Judges: Lee Seiu Kin J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Shaik Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Sukol
- Defendant/Respondent: Saag Oilfield Engineering (S) Pte Ltd and another
- Procedural Posture: Trial in the High Court; first defendant in liquidation; trial proceeded only against the second defendant
- Legal Areas: Tort – Negligence; Tort – Breach of statutory duty
- Statutes Referenced: Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2007 Rev Ed) (“the Act”)
- Key Statutory Provisions: s 5(1), s 5(2)(a)(iii), s 11, s 12(1) (as pleaded)
- Counsel Name(s): Krishna Morthy SV (instructed) (Frontier Law Corporation) for the plaintiff; Anparasan s/o Kamachi and Grace Tan Hui Ying (KhattarWong LLP) for the second defendant
- Judgment Length: 4 pages, 1,973 words
- Cases Cited: [2012] SGHC 251 (as provided in metadata)
Summary
In Shaik Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Sukol v Saag Oilfield Engineering (S) Pte Ltd and another ([2012] SGHC 251), the High Court considered liability for a workplace accident occurring during the construction and installation of an oil rig derrick at a shipyard worksite. The plaintiff, a derrick builder employed by the first defendant (which later went into liquidation), was injured when his fingers were caught between the sheave and the wire of a pulley while a counterweight was being hoisted up using an electrical winch.
The plaintiff sued the second defendant, the occupier of the worksite, alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. Although the plaintiff’s pleadings did not properly capture the statutory duty provision that the court found to be breached, the court held that the evidence nonetheless supported a finding of negligence. The court further found contributory negligence on the plaintiff’s part, reducing damages by 50% because he failed to wear gloves which he knew were required.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The second defendant, PPL Shipyard Pte Ltd, operated a shipyard at 21 Pandan Road, Singapore (the “Worksite”). The first defendant, Saag Oilfield Engineering (S) Pte Ltd, manufactured and repaired oilfield and gas field machinery and equipment, including derricks. The first defendant was contracted to install a derrick, a structural component forming part of an oil rig being constructed at the Worksite. At the time of trial, the first defendant had entered liquidation, so the trial proceeded only against the second defendant.
The plaintiff, Shaik Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Sukol, was employed by the first defendant as a derrick builder. On 4 February 2008, he suffered injuries in an accident while working at the Worksite. In his evidence, he stated that while he had worked on various jobs involving oil rig construction, the day of the accident was his first time working on a derrick. He reported for work and proceeded with his team to the derrick after being issued with certain safety equipment, including harnesses and ropes, helmets, and safety goggles. However, he did not have gloves that day and asked his supervisor, Mr Chong Chun Voon (“Voon”), for spare gloves. Voon did not have any available and instructed him to proceed without gloves because the job had to be completed urgently.
The task required the plaintiff and his team to climb to the top of the derrick, which was described as being the height of a 12-storey building. The team was to hoist counterweights—blocks of steel—up to the top using an electrical winch. The winch motor was located at the bottom of the derrick, and a steel cable ran from the motor to a pulley at the top. As the winch coiled the cable, the load would be lifted. Because walkie-talkies were unavailable (the batteries were flat), the team communicated by hand signals.
The accident occurred during the first lifting operation. As the load was being hoisted, the team members could see that scaffolding installed around parts of the derrick obstructed the path of the load. They stopped the lifting just before the load reached the scaffolding. The plaintiff looked down from his position and saw Voon indicating that the plaintiff should shake the cable to steer the counterweight so it could avoid the scaffolding. The plaintiff complied. When Voon stopped shaking the cable, the plaintiff looked down again, but his left hand was still holding the cable. The winch motor was then started, causing the cable to move up with the plaintiff’s hand holding it. His fingers were caught between the sheave and the wire of the pulley, resulting in the amputation of his left index and middle fingers.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The case raised two principal tort-based issues: first, whether the second defendant was liable for breach of statutory duty under the Workplace Safety and Health Act; and second, whether the second defendant was liable in negligence for failing to take reasonable care to prevent the accident. The plaintiff’s pleadings included reliance on s 12(1) of the Act, but the court observed that s 12(1) is directed to an employer-employee relationship, and the second defendant was not the plaintiff’s employer.
In addition, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff’s own conduct amounted to contributory negligence. The evidence showed that the plaintiff proceeded without gloves at the instruction of his supervisor due to urgency. The court therefore had to assess whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety and, if so, what reduction in damages was appropriate.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by identifying the statutory framework. It held that the Worksite was a “workplace” under the Act. The Act defines “workplace” broadly to include premises where a person is at work or is to work, and it includes a factory. The Worksite was also a “factory” within the meaning of the Act because it fell within premises where persons are employed in the repair, construction, or manufacturing of a vessel or vehicle. This classification mattered because the Act imposes duties on the occupier of a workplace.
Section 11 of the Act provides that it is the duty of every occupier of any workplace to take, so far as is reasonably practicable, measures to ensure that the workplace, means of access or egress, and any machinery, equipment, plant, article, or substance kept on the workplace are safe and without risks to health to every person within those premises, whether or not the person is at work or is an employee of the occupier. The court found that the evidence demonstrated a breach of this statutory duty. In particular, scaffolding obstructing the lifting path was treated as an actual hazard to the lifting works, and the second defendant’s permitting of the lifting works to proceed in those circumstances was inconsistent with the statutory obligation to ensure safety.
However, the court also addressed a pleading and procedural difficulty. The plaintiff’s statement of claim did not plead s 11. Counsel sought to amend the pleadings on 8 May 2012, after the trial had progressed, to include the relevant statutory duty. The second defendant opposed the amendment on the basis that the limitation period for personal injury had passed. The court disallowed the amendment, and it held that because breach of statutory duty must be specifically pleaded, the plaintiff could not rely on the unpleaded statutory provision to establish liability against the second defendant.
Despite the inability to succeed on the statutory duty claim due to pleading defects, the court found that the same factual circumstances supported liability in negligence. The court reasoned that the second defendant, as occupier of a complex worksite where multiple subcontractors operated to build a multi-million dollar oil rig under tight time constraints, owed a duty of care to all persons working at the Worksite. The court emphasised that the work environment involved many foreseeable dangerous situations, and that the second defendant had in fact put in place a safety regime with dedicated safety officers and safety coordination processes.
The evidence of the second defendant’s safety supervisor, Tang Kwok Loong (“Tang”), was central to the negligence analysis. Tang testified that safety coordination meetings were held daily at the Vessel Safety Coordination Committee (“VSCC”) to highlight jobs for coordination. He also described a system of inspections and permits, including that permits were required for hot work and that lifting works required a permit. Tang further testified that the second defendant was supposed to continually check the safety environment and to advise workers of safety requirements, with escalating consequences if advice was not heeded.
Crucially, the court accepted that the dangers were not merely foreseeable but actually foreseen. Tang agreed that scaffolding was a danger to lifting works. He testified that he would have stopped the lifting if he had been present and saw scaffolding obstructing the lifting works. Tang also stated that he would not have agreed to the load being steered by pushing against the cable. The court inferred that if the scaffolding was present at the time of the prior inspection and certification, the certification should not have been made; and if the scaffolding was installed after the inspection, it should not have been permitted in that manner, or should have been installed only after the lifting works were completed. On either view, the second defendant breached its duty of care by allowing the lifting works to proceed in the presence of an actual obstruction.
Finally, the court addressed contributory negligence. It held that the plaintiff failed to exercise due care in carrying out his work, particularly by failing to wear gloves which he knew were required. The court reasoned that if he had worn gloves, the extent of his injury may not have been as serious. Accordingly, it found contributory negligence of 50% and awarded judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for 50% of the damages to be assessed by the Registrar, with costs reserved to the Registrar.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court found the second defendant liable to the plaintiff in negligence. Although the plaintiff’s breach of statutory duty claim was procedurally undermined because the relevant statutory provision (s 11) was not pleaded and the amendment was disallowed, the court nonetheless held that the evidence established a breach of the duty of care owed by the occupier of the Worksite. The court therefore ordered judgment for the plaintiff for 50% of the damages to be assessed by the Registrar.
In addition, the court found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50% due to his failure to wear gloves. Costs were reserved to the Registrar, and the practical effect was that the plaintiff would recover only half of his proven damages for the injury, reflecting both the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s own lack of due care.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is instructive for practitioners because it demonstrates how statutory safety duties under the Workplace Safety and Health Act can inform the negligence analysis even where a statutory duty claim fails on pleading or limitation grounds. The court’s approach underscores that while breach of statutory duty requires careful pleading, the underlying facts that show unsafe conditions and inadequate safety management may still establish negligence and causation.
For employers, occupiers, and safety managers, the case highlights the importance of ensuring that safety inspections and certifications are accurate and contemporaneous with the actual work environment. The court treated the presence of scaffolding obstructing the lifting path as an actual hazard and accepted that the second defendant had anticipated the inherent dangers of lifting works. This meant that the safety regime could not be treated as a mere formality; it had to operate effectively to prevent unsafe conditions from being permitted.
For plaintiffs and claimants, the case also illustrates the risk of contributory negligence findings where workers do not comply with safety equipment requirements. Even where the worksite’s safety management is found wanting, the plaintiff’s failure to wear gloves—particularly when he knew gloves were required—can significantly reduce recoverable damages. The decision therefore serves as a reminder that evidence of safety instructions, availability of protective equipment, and the worker’s compliance will be central to the apportionment of liability.
Legislation Referenced
- Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2007 Rev Ed)
- s 5(1) (definition of “workplace”)
- s 5(2)(a)(iii) (definition of “factory”)
- s 11 (duty of occupier to ensure workplace and equipment are safe and without risks to health)
- s 12(1) (employer-employee relationship; pleaded but held not relevant to the second defendant)
Cases Cited
- [2012] SGHC 251
Source Documents
This article analyses [2012] SGHC 251 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.