Liberty Citystate Insurance v AXA Insurance: Validity of Non-Contribution Clause in Liability Insurance

Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd appealed a decision by the Commissioner for Labour, which held them liable to pay compensation to injured workmen of De Kong Construction (S) Pte Ltd, a sub-contractor. The High Court of Singapore, Rajendran J, allowed the appeal, finding that a 'non-contribution' clause in Liberty Citystate's policy was valid and that AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, the insurer of the main contractor, was liable for the compensation. The primary legal issue was whether the 'non-contribution' clause was prohibited under the Workmen's Compensation Insurance Regulations.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the validity of a non-contribution clause in an employer's liability insurance policy. The court allowed the appeal, finding the clause valid.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AXA Insurance Singapore Pte LtdRespondentCorporationDecision set asideLost
Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte LtdAppellant, RespondentCorporationAppeal allowedWon
De Kong Construction (S) Pte LtdOtherCorporation

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
S RajendranJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Tekken Corporation was the main contractor for a construction project.
  2. De Kong Construction (S) Pte Ltd was a sub-contractor of Tekken Corporation.
  3. Tekken Corporation had an insurance policy with AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd.
  4. De Kong Construction (S) Pte Ltd had an insurance policy with Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd.
  5. The Citystate policy contained a 'non-contribution' clause.
  6. 15 employees of De Kong Construction (S) Pte Ltd were injured at the worksite.
  7. The Commissioner for Labour assessed the compensation payable to the 15 workmen at $237,258.69.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd v AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, , [2001] SGHC 43

6. Timeline

DateEvent
DA 24/2000
Decision Date
Workmen's Compensation Insurance Regulations (Cap 354, Reg 3, 1990 Ed)

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Non-Contribution Clause
    • Outcome: The court held that the non-contribution clause in the Citystate policy was valid.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Compliance with Section 23(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that a sub-contractor could rely on the main contractor's insurance policy to satisfy its obligations under s 23(1) of the Act.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Liability
  2. Order to Pay Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Statutory Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Insurance Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Cosmic Insurance Corp v People`s Insurance CoN/AYesCosmic Insurance Corp v People`s Insurance Co (Unreported)N/ACited for the interpretation of reg 2(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Insurance Regulations regarding the prohibition of certain conditions and exceptions in insurance policies.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Workmen`s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Ed)Singapore
Workmen`s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Ed) s 23(1)Singapore
Workmen`s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Ed) s 24(2)Singapore
Workmen`s Compensation Act (Cap 354, 1998 Ed) s 32(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Non-Contribution Clause
  • Workmen's Compensation
  • Employer's Liability Insurance
  • Sub-Contractor
  • Main Contractor
  • Regulation 2(1)
  • Section 23(1)

15.2 Keywords

  • Insurance
  • Liability
  • Workmen's Compensation
  • Non-Contribution Clause
  • Construction
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Insurance
  • Liability
  • Workmen's Compensation