UDDIN MOHAMMAD ZOSIM v CES ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PTE.LTD.

UDDIN MOHAMMAD ZOSIM v CES ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PTE.LTD.

Claim dismissed because the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Defendant breached its duty of care: Claimant was an experienced worker, produced no evidence that the tool or system of work was defective or below industry standard, did not particularise the alleged dangers or plead res ipsa loquitur, and the evidence supported that the rebar became dislodged without proof of employer fault; additionally WSHA s60(1) precludes a civil cause of action based on statutory contraventions.

Citation
[2025] SGDC 331
Parties
Claimant: Uddin Mohammad Zosim; Defendant: CES Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
30 December 2025
Case Number
DC/OC 1487/2023
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (workplace Injury) / Trial on Responsibility (bifurcated); Judgment on Liability; Causation and Quantum Reserved
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach of Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Workplace Safety and Health Act S60(1)
Source Language
English
Tort Employment Workplace Safety Statutory Interpretation Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uddin Mohammad Zosim

Claimant

CES Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (workplace Injury) / Trial on Responsibility (bifurcated); Judgment on Liability; Causation and Quantum Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How the accident happened
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached its duty of care
  3. 3 Whether the breach caused the accident (causation)

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Defendant breached its duty of care: Claimant was an experienced worker, produced no evidence that the tool or system of work was defective or below industry standard, did not particularise the alleged dangers or plead res ipsa loquitur, and the evidence supported that the rebar became dislodged without proof of employer fault; additionally WSHA s60(1) precludes a civil cause of action based on statutory contraventions.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Parties to file and exchange written submissions on costs (limited to 10 pages) within 14 days of this judgment.