Employer acquitted of charges following employee's work-related injury
Singapore's High Court has rejected an employer's appeal for compensation of $10,000 after he was acquitted from a legal case following a workplace incident in November 2018.
Akbar Ali Abdul Majeed, former director of Newtec Engineering Pte Ltd, was accused of not paying the medical expenses of an employee who was hospitalised after sustaining an injury while working.
Ali signed a Letter of Guarantee to the National University Hospital (NUH) in November 2018 that stated Newtec would pay for the employee's medical expenses.
The director then subsequently resigned from Newtec in the same month, while Newtec did not pay the invoice from NUH for the employee's medical expenses that arrived in February 2019.
Ali was then charged under the Employment Foreign Manpower Act, facing allegations that he consented to Newtec's breach of regulations that mandate employers to bear the costs of medical treatment of foreign employees.
The District Court acquitted Ali after his defence submitted a "no case to answer" argument, requesting an acquittal without presenting a defence, on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence.
According to the court judge, the element of consent for Newtec's offence was not proven, as it was unclear if Ali, as a former director, still had knowledge of the company's affairs when the bill was due.
Ali then sought compensation of $10,000, as well as legal costs, alleging that the prosecution against him was "frivolous or vexatious."
The district court, however, rejected the request, which Ali took to the High Court.
The High Court, in a decision released in February, upheld the lower court's decision.
"I dismiss the appeal and uphold the District Judge's dismissal of the Application," said High Court Judge Aidan Xu in his ruling.
According to Xu, Ali had not proven the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious, noting that the evidence presented was sufficient for the case to proceed.
Ali attempted to argue that each individual piece of evidence failed to show or give rise to the inference that he had knowledge that Newtec would not be able to pay the medical invoice.
"This approach is not correct," Xu said. "A decision on conviction or acquittal rests on the totality of the evidence, not the isolated strength of each piece of evidence. Moreover, it had already been established that the Prosecution's case was premised on circumstantial rather than direct evidence."
The High Court judge also rejected Ali's allegation that the prosecution was trying to establish precedent.
"In any event, even if the prosecution was indeed pursuing a novel legal question, that would not by itself show an improper motive. The prosecution would only be vexatious or frivolous if the legal proposition underlying the prosecution was clearly unsustainable on any reasonable reading of the law," Xu said.
