Case Details
- Case Title: UDDIN MOHAMMAD ZOSIM v CES ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PTE.LTD.
- Citation: [2025] SGDC 331
- Court: District Court (State Courts of the Republic of Singapore)
- Case Type: District Court Originating Claim No 1487 of 2023
- Judgment Date: 30 December 2025
- Judges: District Judge Sia Aik Kor
- Hearing Dates: 23 October 2024; 15 July 2025; 21 July 2025; 2 December 2025
- Reserved: Judgment reserved
- Plaintiff/Applicant (Claimant): Uddin Mohammad Zosim
- Defendant/Respondent: CES Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd.
- Legal Area(s): Tort (Negligence); Workplace Safety and Health (WSHA)
- Primary Legal Labels in Judgment: Tort — Negligence — Breach of Duty; Breach of statutory duties under WSHA
- Statutes Referenced: Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (“WSHA”); Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations (including Regulation 8)
- Key WSHA Provisions Alleged (as pleaded): Sections 11, 12, 14; Regulation 8 of the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations
- Cases Cited (as reflected in extract): Chen Qiangshi v Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 177
- Judgment Length: 25 pages, 7,225 words
Summary
In Uddin Mohammad Zosim v CES Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd. [2025] SGDC 331, the District Court considered a workplace injury claim brought by an employee against his employer. The claimant alleged that while bending rebars using a rebar bender, the rebar broke, causing him to be flung approximately two metres and land on metal formwork, resulting in injuries to his back. He pursued the claim in negligence and also alleged multiple breaches of statutory duties under the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (“WSHA”).
The court’s analysis proceeded in a bifurcated manner: responsibility was tried first, with causation and quantum reserved. A central threshold issue was whether the claimant could sue for contraventions of WSHA provisions at all. The court held that, by virtue of section 60(1) of the WSHA, the Act does not confer a civil right of action for contraventions, thereby foreclosing any standalone statutory-duty claim. The court then addressed the negligence claim using the established four-fold test for negligence, focusing on how the accident happened, whether the employer breached the applicable duty of care, and whether any breach caused the claimant’s injuries.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The claimant, Uddin Mohammad Zosim, was employed by the defendant, CES Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd., to perform general construction work. The claimant’s case was that, sometime on or about 26 April 2022, he was tasked to bend rebars at a worksite using a “25M rebar bender”. During the task, the rebar broke. As a result, he was flung about two metres away and landed on metal formwork, after which he suffered injuries, which he said included injury to his back.
In his pleadings, the claimant framed the employer’s negligence in broad terms. He alleged that the defendant failed to provide a safe system of work by not identifying and eliminating risks associated with the task; failed to supervise him adequately and coordinate the work; failed to provide additional manpower given the nature of the work and the height at which he was working; failed to ensure he was fitted with appropriate safety protection equipment such as a harness; and failed to ensure that precautionary measures were taken before he carried out the assigned task. He also alleged inadequate risk assessment and inadequate tools.
On the statutory side, the claimant pleaded that the defendant breached multiple WSHA duties, including duties relating to safety and health measures for persons at work, the provision and maintenance of a safe work environment, exposure to hazards arising from the arrangement and working of articles or things, and the provision of adequate instruction, information, training and supervision. He further alleged failures to implement a safety management system (including under Regulation 8 of the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations) and failures to promote safe conduct generally within the workplace.
The defendant’s account differed in important respects. The defendant accepted that the claimant was assigned to bend rebars, but described the rebar bender as consisting of two short rebars welded together (approximately 10 to 15 centimetres long) and a longer rebar (approximately 1 to 1.5 metres). The defendant’s site supervisor, Wang Fenguan (“Wang”), inspected the alleged accident scene on 26 April 2022 and did not notice broken rebars. Wang instead observed chipping at the base of one bent rebar and abrasions on the claimant’s left forearm. The defendant also asserted that the claimant declined to consult a doctor and continued working after receiving first aid from Wang.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue concerned the claimant’s WSHA-based claims. The court noted that under section 60(1) of the WSHA, nothing in the Act is to be construed as conferring a right of action in civil proceedings for contraventions of WSHA provisions. Accordingly, the court held that there was no basis for the claimant’s claim “on the ground of” any breach of statutory duty under the WSHA.
The second issue concerned negligence. The court applied the four-fold test for negligence articulated in Chen Qiangshi v Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 177 at [125]: (a) duty of care; (b) breach of duty by falling below the requisite standard of care; (c) loss; and (d) causation—namely that the breach caused the loss. It was not disputed that the defendant, as employer, owed the claimant a duty of care. Because the trial was bifurcated, the court’s responsibility analysis focused on (a) how the accident happened, (b) whether there was a breach of duty, and (c) whether the breach caused the accident (with causation and quantum reserved in the broader sense).
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began with the factual question of how the accident happened, because the negligence analysis depended on whether the claimant’s account was credible and consistent with the evidence. The claimant amended his statement of claim and evidence on the first day of trial to put the accident as occurring on 26 April 2022 rather than 28 April 2022. He maintained that the rebar broke while he was bending it, and that he fell facing up and injured his back.
The defendant challenged credibility, pointing to inconsistencies about the date of the accident and the manner of the fall. The court examined the documentary and testimonial evidence relating to the date. Initially, the claimant had put the date of the accident as 29 April 2022. The incident/accident investigation and analysis report appeared to reflect that the claimant had stated in a witness statement that the accident happened on 29 April 2022 at 4 p.m. The court also noted evidence from the defendant’s safety officer, Eto, that no investigation was carried out on 26 April 2022 and that it was only on 12 May 2022 that he contacted the defendant’s safety supervisor, Ali, to assist in explaining to the claimant the purpose of the witness statement, after which the claimant filled in the form on his own. This suggested that the date and time recorded on the form might not accurately reflect the true date of the incident.
The court further considered medical evidence and contemporaneous records. The defendant highlighted that the claimant sought medical attention at Tan Tock Seng Hospital on 20 May 2022, and a referral letter stated that he suffered a workplace injury and fell on 29 April 2022. The court observed that the maker of that statement was not called, and the inconsistency was not put to the claimant while he was on the stand. The court also noted that the claimant later appeared to be consistent in putting the date of the accident as 28 April 2022 in a WSH incident report dated 16 June 2022 and in his account to a doctor on 28 December 2022, as reflected in a medical report. The court treated these inconsistencies as relevant to assessing the weight to be placed on the claimant’s account of the accident.
Although the extract provided does not include the court’s full findings on the “how he fell” and “what made the claimant fall” questions, the structure of the judgment indicates that the court proceeded to evaluate whether the task of bending the rebar using the rebar bender was performed within a safe system of work. The court also addressed whether the claimant’s actions contributed to the accident, including the notion of “tiptoeing to push the rebar up” (as reflected in the judgment headings). In negligence cases involving workplace accidents, such findings typically matter because they affect whether the employer’s system of work was adequate and whether the claimant’s own conduct amounted to contributory fault.
On the statutory claims, the court’s reasoning was comparatively straightforward. It treated section 60(1) of the WSHA as a bar to civil actions founded on contraventions of WSHA provisions. This meant that the claimant could not obtain liability merely by proving that the defendant breached WSHA duties. However, the court’s discussion suggests that WSHA-related evidence may still be relevant to the negligence analysis as part of the factual matrix—particularly where the standard of care in negligence is informed by industry practice and statutory safety expectations. In other words, while WSHA contraventions could not ground a standalone statutory cause of action, the safety management expectations and workplace safety measures contemplated by the WSHA framework could still inform whether the defendant met the common law standard of care.
What Was the Outcome?
Based on the court’s approach, the claimant’s WSHA-based claims were dismissed at the threshold level because section 60(1) of the WSHA does not confer a right of action in civil proceedings for contraventions of the Act. The court therefore did not proceed to determine liability purely on the basis of alleged statutory breaches.
On negligence, the court’s ultimate outcome would have depended on its findings on credibility, the mechanism of the accident, whether the defendant breached the duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work (including supervision, manpower, safety equipment, and risk assessment), and whether any breach caused the accident and the claimant’s injuries. The extract provided does not include the final dispositive paragraphs, but the judgment headings and the bifurcated structure indicate that the court reached conclusions on how the accident happened, whether the task and working method were safe, and whether the claimant bore contributory responsibility.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it reiterates a key procedural and substantive point about WSHA litigation: section 60(1) of the WSHA prevents claimants from suing directly for civil liability “in respect of any contravention” of WSHA provisions. Lawyers advising injured workers must therefore be careful not to plead WSHA contraventions as independent causes of action for damages. Instead, WSHA duties may be used to support or contextualise the common law negligence analysis, but they cannot, by themselves, found a civil right of action.
For employers and insurers, the case also underscores that negligence claims in workplace settings will turn heavily on factual credibility and the evidential record. In this case, the court scrutinised inconsistencies in the date of the accident and the claimant’s account of how the accident occurred, including how and when witness statements and incident reports were completed. This illustrates the practical importance of contemporaneous documentation, accurate incident reporting, and consistent witness evidence.
Finally, the case highlights how courts may evaluate “safe system of work” in concrete terms—such as the adequacy of tools, supervision, manpower, and safety equipment, and whether the claimant’s own working method (for example, any risky posture or movement) contributed to the accident. For law students and litigators, the judgment provides a useful template for structuring negligence analysis in workplace injury claims: duty, breach, causation, and contributory fault, all anchored in the specific mechanism of the accident.
Legislation Referenced
- Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (WSHA), in particular section 60(1)
- Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (WSHA), sections 11, 12, 14 (as pleaded by the claimant)
- Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations, Regulation 8 (as pleaded by the claimant)
Cases Cited
- Chen Qiangshi v Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 177
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGDC 331 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.