1. IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Members are encouraged to install GOM or HOLA or TUNNELBEAR for an added layer of protection.  The SEX forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chitchat PRC Work Injury claim lawsuit backfires

Discussion in 'The Courtyard Café' started by scroobal, Aug 12, 2017.

  1. scroobal

    scroobal Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    24,361
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Interesting case. Sounds like a setup. Despite so many discrepancies why did the lawyer pursue this case. Now a $35K bill which does include lawyer's bill.


    http://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...ho-sued-despite-compensation-offer-loses-case

    Worker who sued despite compensation offer loses case, ordered to pay $35k in costs
    Chinese national Xu Zhenbing was ordered to pay $35,000 in legal costs after being unable to prove his claim.

    PUBLISHEDAUG 11, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT

    Chinese national who rejected MOM payout couldn't prove claim, must pay $35k in costs
    K.C. VijayanSenior Law Correspondent
    An injured worker was offered compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act (Wica) but declined the sum and opted to sue in court instead. He failed to prove his claim and now finds he must pay $35,000 in costs instead.

    The case could serve as an eye-opener for workers who spurn the compensation that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) offers them. The ministry has asked such workers to "consider carefully" before they opt to go to court as the burden of proof there may be different.

    The issue has come under the spotlight following the case of Chinese national Xu Zhenbing, who claimed that he suffered injuries on his right wrist when carrying out reinforcement works of metal rebars in a lift shaft at an Alexandra View worksite in 2014. He was 43 years old at the time.

    Defendants Sen Lin Construction and Daewoo Engineering & Construction, represented by lawyer Hong Heng Leong, contested his claims in the High Court trial.

    Judicial Commissioner Audrey Lim ruled last month that Mr Xu was not able to show, on balance, that "he was performing metal rebar works at a lift shaft on Sept 27, 2014".

    The records did not indicate rebar works done at the lift shaft and it was "more likely" that he was doing rebar works at the water pipes as documented, the judge said.

    Mr Xu had claimed that he told a senior company employee about the accident at around 9pm on the same day at the workers' dormitory.

    But the employee testified that he did not make such trips down to the dormitory, "much less on a weekend and so late at night".

    Judicial Commissioner Lim also found it strange that the worker told the doctor in January 2015 that the fracture occurred only about two months after he had hurt himself.

    "Xu's claim on how he sustained the injury rested essentially on his own oral assertions," added the judge. She also made it clear that MOM's findings on the case did not affect her findings as there was no evidence on how rigorous the assessment was.

    Mr Xu, represented by lawyer Eric Liew, was ordered to pay $35,000 in legal costs.

    Ms Kee Ee Wah, director of MOM's Work Injury Compensation Department, said that Wica was a no-fault regime that admitted claims as long as the injury arose in the course of employment.

    "The worker need not prove fault or negligence on anyone's part," she said.

    In Mr Xu's case, none of the four witnesses produced by the employer could show that the injury was not work-related and the claim was admitted.

    Noting that about 800 injured workers annually withdraw their Wica claims to pursue them in court instead, Ms Kee urged injured workers to "consider carefully between claiming under Wica and filing a suit under common law, as the evidential requirements are different".

    Workers can still re-apply for Wica claims within a year of the accident after losing their lawsuit, but in Mr Xu's case, that deadline has already passed.

    According to MOM's website, for accidents before Jan 1 last year, involving permanent incapacity, the compensation payable varies between $73,000 and $218,000.
     
  2. bobby

    bobby Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    knn...want to sue gahmen in singapore.

    siao lang.
     
  3. halsey02

    halsey02 Alfrescian (Inf)

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    31,052
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The kek leng's & the bangla's had learnt their lessons, that is why, these days, you don't hear them taking the employers to court for injury claims, just take, what MOM says they get & run home with it...it is actually a fair deal. In the past, these clowns will be approached by their own kind "snake" lawyers...who says they can get more...& they just sign the dotted lines....they do not know lawyers charge by the hour etc..( like the taxi meter), out of pocket expenses etc...by the time, they do get some compensation, the lawyer's would have gone 'fat' & all the victim gets are about 20 grams of mustard seeds...ha ha ha ha

    The Chinaman...is new to this..they will learn! the hard way....
     
  4. congo9

    congo9 Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Chinamen on WP is not new to this. I think the lawyers at people park COMPLEX had been doing very brisk business since 2006 when the flood gate flung open suddenly.
     
  5. scroobal

    scroobal Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    24,361
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I believe GD mentioned this as well. This one is dodgy, no evidence of he working at that location, injury reported 2 days later and lack of documentation. I am actually surprised workman comp actually made an offer.

     
  6. songsongjurong

    songsongjurong Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    how is he gonna foot the legal $35k bill? go to jail, taxpayer need to foot his lodging ,food, security protection..
     
  7. scroobal

    scroobal Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    24,361
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Unless he has got money nothing can be done, they will write it off. They will not even bother to make him bankrupt as it will incur costs. That's the reason why lawyers like these sort of clients to try their luck.

    Singaporeans will fear bankruptcy and will not agree with their lawyer on these sort of scams.



     
  8. Bonut

    Bonut Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,609
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If contingency fees is allowed, then there is a good chance.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017

Share This Page