thumbnail view

Working MOM – Calibrating the broadening scope of the Work Injury Compensation Regime

It is no secret that the Work Injury Compensation regime, codified through the Work Injury Compensation Act (“WICA”), is structured in a manner that is often perceived to be generous towards injured workers. Indeed, the High Court has previously described the WICA as “social legislation” that should therefore be “interpreted purposively in favour of employees who have suffered injury during their employment” (see Pang Chew Kim v Wartsila Singapore Pte Ltd, [2011] SGHC 94; [2012] 1 SLR 15 at [27]). The High Court’s recent decision in Hauque Enamul v China Taiping Insurance(Singapore) Pte Ltd, [2018] SGHC 118; [2018] 5 SLR 485 (“Hauque Enamul”) is but the latest example of the Court’s purposive interpretation of the WICA so as to give effect to the legislative intent of social insurance, while seeking to refrain from opening the floodgates to a flurry of tenuous claims from injured workers at the expense of employers or insurers.Read More

thumbnail view

Characterist in the news: Urgent Application for Vacant Possession of the Teochew Building

Read More

thumbnail view

Characterist in the news: Trial verdict of Chew Eng Han (12 Dec 2018)

Read More

thumbnail view

Bad judgment or bad faith? A cautionary tale for Nominees

Persons who act as nominees in Voluntary Arrangements have a duty to act in utmost good faith. Where the nominee’s conduct of the creditors’ meeting is in bad faith, such that the nominee’s conduct is deficient, leading to a material irregularity at or in relation to the creditors meeting, the nominee may, in appropriate cases, be personally liable to pay the legal costs of affected creditors.

Read More