SINGAPORE: A 34-year-old foreign worker who was injured badly while being transported in the back of an open lorry has been allowed to reinstate his court action against the construction firm that employed him.
Mr Gurusamy Muthu Raja was terminated after being found unfit for work and repatriated to India, where he has been unable to find a permanent job.
In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Mar 27), District Judge Shen Wanqin allowed Mr Gurusamy's action to be reinstated despite it having been automatically discontinued in November 2023 due to lack of official follow-up.
Judge Shen said this case presents "a rare and exceptional situation in which it is just and necessary to reinstate the action".
"The accident robbed the plaintiff of his life and livelihood in Singapore, leaving him with no choice but to return to India. While his inaction during the critical period is not ideal, he did what he believed he could to progress the case with the cards he was dealt with in life. As such, his efforts should be recognised, and his inaction pardoned," she said.
Mr Gurusamy was employed by Full House Building Construction at the time of the accident on Aug 29, 2019.
When the lorry driver braked abruptly, he was flung upwards in the back of the lorry and struck by the canopy system.
According to the judge, this accident struck Mr Gurusamy "at the prime of his life and left him with significant injuries to his right elbow and left shoulder" which required surgery.
After the accident, he was medically assessed and found to be unfit for work.
His employer terminated him and sent him back to India on Jan 16, 2021.
Mr Gurusamy is the sole breadwinner for his family. He is still receiving treatment for his injuries.
He commenced a court action against his former employer in June 2021 after he was repatriated home.
In November 2022, a consent judgment apportioned 95 per cent liability to his ex-employer, and 5 per cent to Mr Gurusamy.
After this, Mr Gurusamy engaged his former employer in negotiations to obtain an interim payment and took other steps to keep the case moving.
However, as no steps were recorded in the court's system between November 2022 and November 2023, the latter of which is known as the "guillotine date", the action was automatically discontinued on Nov 2, 2023.
Mr Gurusamy then applied in December 2023 to have the case reinstated.
Judge Shen found that he had conducted the case expeditiously before November 2022 and that his inaction since then is excusable.
In closing, she noted that counsel for Mr Gurusamy, Mr Muhamad Ashraf Syed Ansari from Yeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation, had chosen to "focus their strategy on blaming the defendant for the delay in the proceedings" and for not disclosing a certain report.
On the other hand, counsel for the defendant, Mr Appoo Ramesh and Ms Ellice Kuah Jin Yu from Just Law, chose not to respond to the request for the report, claiming that no directions had been given by the court to mutually exchange relevant documents.
Judge Shen said the conduct by both parties was counterproductive to the efficient and effective resolution of the dispute.
After being told about this, both sides acknowledged they could have done better, the judge said.
"In fact, parties have shown, through their successful negotiations pertaining to the interim payment, that they can communicate and work professionally with each other to resolve an issue," said Judge Shen.
She added that this application could have been avoided altogether if both parties had adopted the same collaborative approach.
"If communication and collaboration are to happen only through the courts' directions, the very purpose of communication and collaboration will be defeated, and the beauty of such skills will be lost forever," she said.
Continue reading...
Mr Gurusamy Muthu Raja was terminated after being found unfit for work and repatriated to India, where he has been unable to find a permanent job.
In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Mar 27), District Judge Shen Wanqin allowed Mr Gurusamy's action to be reinstated despite it having been automatically discontinued in November 2023 due to lack of official follow-up.
Judge Shen said this case presents "a rare and exceptional situation in which it is just and necessary to reinstate the action".
"The accident robbed the plaintiff of his life and livelihood in Singapore, leaving him with no choice but to return to India. While his inaction during the critical period is not ideal, he did what he believed he could to progress the case with the cards he was dealt with in life. As such, his efforts should be recognised, and his inaction pardoned," she said.
THE CASE
Mr Gurusamy was employed by Full House Building Construction at the time of the accident on Aug 29, 2019.
When the lorry driver braked abruptly, he was flung upwards in the back of the lorry and struck by the canopy system.
According to the judge, this accident struck Mr Gurusamy "at the prime of his life and left him with significant injuries to his right elbow and left shoulder" which required surgery.
After the accident, he was medically assessed and found to be unfit for work.
His employer terminated him and sent him back to India on Jan 16, 2021.
Mr Gurusamy is the sole breadwinner for his family. He is still receiving treatment for his injuries.
He commenced a court action against his former employer in June 2021 after he was repatriated home.
In November 2022, a consent judgment apportioned 95 per cent liability to his ex-employer, and 5 per cent to Mr Gurusamy.
After this, Mr Gurusamy engaged his former employer in negotiations to obtain an interim payment and took other steps to keep the case moving.
However, as no steps were recorded in the court's system between November 2022 and November 2023, the latter of which is known as the "guillotine date", the action was automatically discontinued on Nov 2, 2023.
Mr Gurusamy then applied in December 2023 to have the case reinstated.
JUDGE'S FINDINGS
Judge Shen found that he had conducted the case expeditiously before November 2022 and that his inaction since then is excusable.
In closing, she noted that counsel for Mr Gurusamy, Mr Muhamad Ashraf Syed Ansari from Yeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation, had chosen to "focus their strategy on blaming the defendant for the delay in the proceedings" and for not disclosing a certain report.
On the other hand, counsel for the defendant, Mr Appoo Ramesh and Ms Ellice Kuah Jin Yu from Just Law, chose not to respond to the request for the report, claiming that no directions had been given by the court to mutually exchange relevant documents.
Judge Shen said the conduct by both parties was counterproductive to the efficient and effective resolution of the dispute.
After being told about this, both sides acknowledged they could have done better, the judge said.
"In fact, parties have shown, through their successful negotiations pertaining to the interim payment, that they can communicate and work professionally with each other to resolve an issue," said Judge Shen.
She added that this application could have been avoided altogether if both parties had adopted the same collaborative approach.
"If communication and collaboration are to happen only through the courts' directions, the very purpose of communication and collaboration will be defeated, and the beauty of such skills will be lost forever," she said.
Continue reading...