Workplace Safety and Health Act

Came into effect in 1 March 2006

Replace the Factories Act
Came about due to 3 incidents (Nicoll Highway/Keppel Shipyard/Fusionpolis)
Reduce risk by eliminate/minimize risk
Change from Reaction to Prevention
Prevent accident by giving higher penalties to induce cultural changes and reflect the true
cost of poor safety management
State the responsible parties and better define who is responsible
Heavy responsibilities on contractors and sub contractors
Protect the workers and public at a workplace from injury by deterring risk-taking
behaviours on people who create and have control over safety risk at workplace. (Part IV)
WSHA is to protect public and workers not to protect subcontractor and contractors
Increase direct liability for workplace safety
A duty will not be diminished if it is imposed in one or two more persons

Require them to conduct risk assessments

Provide for the appointment of authorised examiners and inspectors
Provide a range of enforcement methods
Specific duties for various persons

1) Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and others [2012]
Facts

Tower crane collapsed

3 workers died ( 2 in the crane cabin / one was not a authorised crane operator)
Kimly > Rango > TJP > 4th parties
TJP was professional mechanical engineer and also authorised examiner under WSHA to
inspect, test and certify lifting machines to be safe for use
He carried inspection and certified that they were safe for use.
Rango paid $716 to TJP and there are no written contract
There were presences of Pre-existing cracks at certain location of the mast anchors and
mast

Contract stuff
Contract term state that Rango would indemnify Kimly against all claims etc incurred by
Kimly arised of Rango negligence or breach of sub contract
Rango did not have contractual rights to indemnity from TJP and they never considered
the issue of risk allocation
Rango need to show that TJP owe a duty to care to Kimly too for the damage caused
Spandeck test needed to be done for that and the first part failed
AE did not fall under people responsible under WSHA Pt IV
TJP give no case to answer so 4th parties are not involved and cannot claim from them

Crane stuff
Main reason for collapse was hard to figure out
Tower crane had 4 mast achors
Erected on 18 November 2006
Drawing submitted by Feng (4th party) to MOM and got approval and he issued cert that
the crane is structurally sound
TJP carried out 3 inspections
1st one before erection is non-destructive test on critical parts of the crane (but not
the mast achors)
2nd on site load test after erection
3rd on same as 2nd
Investigation reports hard to determine the cause of the collapse
There were pre existing cracks in the mast achors
Collapse may be caused one of the operator was unauthorised
Contract stuff
Kimly say Rango breach as there never found out the cracks
Rango say TJP breach because never check safe
Never conduct NDT on the mast anchors if not the collapse would have been
avoided
Never carry out pre-erection inspection
Kimly and Rango
Rango liable to pay Kimly
Rango and TJP (NOT FINAL)
TJP was liable for failure to detect the cracks under WSH regime
Judge say TJP liable to pay rango ( rango payment to kimly as well as cost)
For the Appeal / previous decisions
Kimly succed claim against rango
Rango succed claim against TJP
TJP claim against 4th parties was dimissed
APPEAL
Oral contract between TJP and Rango
Need to show that AE is directly liable to the main contractor for the same damage that
the sub contractor is liable for
Whether TJP owes a duty of care as an AE, no as it is not listed in the WSHA
With the spandeck test, it failed as the 1st test for proximity is that WSHA is not to
protect contractors and sub-contractors
WSHA contemplates that an AE owe no civil liability under WSH Regime
AE is an additional safety net and additional layer of protection

TJP need not indemnify Rango

2) Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd and others [2014]
Facts

Crane collapsed into the manhole

JPW > MA (Sub contractors)
JPW > Hup Hin > Moh Seng
MA requested JPW for mobile cranes, JPW asked Hup Hin , Hup Hin did not have any
cranes so asked Moh Seng
Lian drive the crane to the site and asked to park at CL2 where the manhole is by MA
lifting supervisor. Lian thought it was unsafe and asked the safety officer of JPW which
told him it was safe.
The crane fall into the manhole and all parties deny knowing about the manhole

Moh seng V Hup Hin (Before appeal)

Nothing in the crane supply contract between JPW and Hup Hin
JPW/Hup Hin/ Moh seng was oral contract
JPW pay Hup Hin then Hup Hin pay Moh Seng
JPW was not a party to the hiring contract
Hup Hin had never receive possession of the crane as it was directly delivered
Whether Moh Seng can claim from JPW and/or MA for negligence (before appeal)
Judge found that the cause of damage was due to the manhole
Spandeck test was held and legal proximity was satisfied
Judge found that JPW did not take reasonable care
But MA and Moh seng have no negligence
Whether JPW can be indemnified by Hup Hin and/or MA (before appeal)
The judge dismissed the claims and JPW had no basis to claim
Reason for the appeal
Main contractor solely liable for negligence
JPW reason for appeal
JPW said that the
lifting supervisor was not from JPW but from MA
MA was aware of the existence of the manhole and has been concealed by soil
excavated by MA
JPW safety officer has asked for the crane to be removed
JPW said that there is no legal proximity as JPW was only the licensed occupier and they
have taken all reasonable safety measures
Said that the other companies should be liable too
Moh seng said

JPW owe a duty of care as it has overall control of the workplace and knew about the
manhole etc
Further confirmed by WSHA

Hup hin said

It is industry practice that the crane in charge is liable for all losses and damages to a
crane
Hup Hin was never present during the event
MA said
JPW should have put warning signs to warn of the manhole
Lifting was not under MAs duties
No knowledge of manhole so they cannot have a duty of care towards Moh Seng
Whether Lifting officer was under JPW or MA
JPW did request MA to temporary provide lifting officer
At the time of the event, the person was acting as MA site supervisor in addition to theit
lifting supervisor
He wore MA helmet and he identify himself was an employee of MA
So the lifting officer was representing MA
Whether JPW safety officer have given instruction to move
Judge say it was weird that Safety officer give instruction but walk away and did not see
his instruction being carried out
Lian and the lifting supervisor said that they disagree that the safety officer have given
instruction
The safety officer did not give instruction to move
Whether JPW is negligent
Under WSHA, need to increase direct liability
There is proximity between JPW and Moh seng
JPW is occupier under WSHA
JPW knew of the manhole and said its so obvious there is no need for signs which give
rise to sufficient proximity
JPW fail to identify and rectify the underground hazard
JPW owe Moh seng duty of care and liable for the damage to Moh seng
Whether MA was negligent
The lifting operations were part of MAs scope of work
MA appear to know about the manhole as well
MA had carried out works in the manhole for investigation etc
Ma had the responsibility to be fully informed about the conditions of the worksite
MA should undergo checks for unsafe features
Lifting supervisor had a responsibility to check that the ground condition were safe
MA was liable for the damages

Whether Moh seng was negligent

Depends on Lians conduct
Crane would not have fallen if risk assement on it was done
Moh seng is not neglience
Whether Hup Hin was negligent
Hup Hin is not neglience
Whether Hup Hin was in breach of crane supply contract
JPW could not have been entitled to damages from Hup Hin
Accident was caused by JPWs work system
It would have happen even if Hup hin have alleged breaches
It is unnecessary to find out if Hup hin did breach the contract
Whether MA breach the subcontractors
MA did breach due to the lifting supervisors duties
Lifting supervisor fail to ensure ground conditions were safe
Conclusion
JPW & MA liable to Moh Seng in 60:40
3) Public Prosecutor v Guthrie Engineering (S) Pte Ltd [2007]
Facts
Worker was hit by excavator hoe bucket when it dropped on him and died
Guthrie > SG powergrid > Powerworks > Poh Huat
Poh Huat was in charge of the maintenance
Excavator
Quick coupler used in the excavator was a modified model and the drop could be due to
the failure of the safety pin
The bucket has fell due to the stopper bar has become loose and dislodged from its
original position after the safety pin has come off
Guthrie
Guthrie is the occupier of the site and failed to take reasonable measure for safety and
only relied on Poh huats word
Guthrie could have engage 3rd parties occupational safety and health officers
They say that they are only occupier and that they did not carry out any works
They said that it was Poh huats duty for maintenance and nothing they do would have
prevented the accident
They said that there are remorse and the court should bear that in mind
After the accident, Guthrie developed safety management system and many other safety
things

Result

The company had a good safety record and was remorseful

The company ran a risk with objective of saving money due to lack of safety measures
The company should have taken steps in the code to establish a maintenance regime
The court feels that the company fails to be proactive.
Fine $100,000 but the company appealed

4) Public Prosecutor v Mirador Building Contractor Pte Ltd [2008]

Facts

Employee from Mirador died from scaffolding collapse, 4 other injured

Company appealed against the fine given on them on the basis that it is too much
Boustead > Innofield > Scarfcoat > Sin Long > Mirador
Scaffold tie backs has been removed prematurely
Miradors scaffold supervisor did not inspect the scaffold before the works began

Mirador
This is their 1st offence
They say the tie backs were removed by another company and they have no supervisory
role on that employee
It was scarfcoat that had overall control and scarfcoat was fined $100,000
They say they are the 4th tier of responsibilty behind other company
They say a discount should be given to them
Result
Fail to act according to WSHA
For safe dismantle, they should be provided with Personal safety equipment (PPE) and
need to wear safety harness and attached fall arrester to the secured lifeline to prevent
from falling from height
The case Mirador fail to take a few reasonable steps and the accident would have been
prevented if there is a thorough and careful inspection and would have found the missing
tie backs
The deceased were told to attach harness to the scaffold frames instead of the lifeline as
the hooks were too large for the lifeline and this will protect no protection.
The above shows that the company have fallen short of its duty
The company is fined $100,000.
5) Public Prosecutor v CME Industries Pte Ltd [2009]
Facts
CME to pay $80,000 in fines and they file an appeal
Death of one worker and another seriously injured due to extension of the mast climbing
arm collapsed and they are from pointbuilt
Wee Hur > Yodai > Pointbuilt
Wee Hur > CME

CME supply and install access equipment system like the Mast climbing work platform
CME were to erect , extend and dismantle and provide training and also carry out
maintenance works

Mast climbing work platform

There is strict weight requirements
No more than 3 workers on the platform with 2 extension ( not exceed 500 KG)
No more than 1 worker on the cantilever extension ( not exceed 80 KG )
There were overloading in this case (2 workers on the extension)
MOM only approve one worker on the extension
There were only one sign at the main platform that says maximum of 3 person and 680
kg but no sign for the extension
CME
Say they regretted the accident and are remorseful
Accept that there was lack of signage
They did conduct training course but the 2 workers were not trained and should not have
allowed to work
They said the occupier could have taken necessary steps and also give them PPE
Result
CME has a duty a care to ensure proper use of equipment but did not put up the sign
They place sign on the main platform so there know the dangers of overloading and knew
it was essential information
The lack of signage will cause workers to think the main platform restriction applies to
the extension
Mast climbing work platform is a high risk equipment under WSHA and any failure in
safety would be fatal to workers
This was a foreseeable and obvious risk
As suppliers they cannot diminish their duty and blame on Wen Hur
PPE are means of last resort in safety measures and CME cannot rely on that
The fine of $80,000 were relevant
6) Matec Engineering Services Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [2008]
Facts
Gim Tian > Matec
Tan Ngai Tiam (Matec employee) stood in the bucket of the cherry picker to carry out
spray painting and the bus hit the cherry picker and he fell off and died
Matec never take reasonable measures
Gim tian conducted the risk assessment but Matec did not comply fully with the safety
measures that the danger of pedestrians entering the work zone
There were no signboards etc to warn oncoming pedestrians and motorists and no
manpower to look out for passerby
The cherry picker protruded beyond 0.5 m and the person was not wearing safety belt

Matec
They say the warning signs were to place on the work area and not on the road and this
would not have prevented the accident from happening
The person was also the supervisor who is responsible for measures that would have
prevented the accident (look out and safety belt)
Matec had compiled with all safety features except the signboards
There were no presence of safety officer by the main contractor
Result
There are many reasonable measures that could have been put in place to prevent it ( eg
station personnel to look out)
The company had plead guilty and has good safety record.
After the accident, they erected barriers at the work site
There is no need for road closure and cannot put signs on the road unless obtain approval
from the traffic police
The scope of work only involveds 5-10 mins
Matec said that even if they have place signs it would not have prevented the accident
from happening
But Matec did admit they did not take reasonably practice to ensure safety
The court say that Matec fail to meet WSHA and failed to conduct risk assessments and
failed to provide plans to eliminate risks
Unacceptable to shift its blame to the main contractor
Fine $80,000
Regina v Davies [2003]
Fatal injuries in the UK resulted in high financial cost
New regulations is for social and economic purposes
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007]
2 stage test to determine for breach of duty of care
1) There must be proximity to establish duty of care
2) There must be no policy consideration to negate (1)
Legal proximity is the closeness of the parties relationship
R v F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999]
Penalty should reflect public disquiet at the unnecessary loss of life
Financial profit can be often made at the expense of proper action to protect employees
and the public
The sentence should reflect the degree of risk and extend of the danger created by the
offence and the extent of the breach
A fine need to be large enough to bring the message home where the defendant is a
company not only to those who manage it but also its shareholders about achieving a safe
environment
Size of a company and its financial strength or weakness cannot affect the degree of care
that is required in matters of safety

R v Cappagh Public Works Ltd [1999]

Fines should reflect the financial circumstances of the defendant
This applies to both company as to individual
R v Rollco Screw & Rivet Co [1999]
Financial penalties imposed are appropriate to mark the gravity of the case
R v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2006]
Court to take a more severe view of the breaches of health and safety where there is a
significant public element
Where the general public trust in the competence and efficiency of such companies