SINGAPORE — Can a worker who was attacked by his colleague at their workplace qualify for compensation from his employer for his injuries?

A High Court judge thinks so and said, in a judgment released yesterday, that such deliberate attacks — especially where the victim did not expect the assault — count as workplace “accidents” under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA).

The case in question involved an apprentice carpenter, Mr Kee Yau Chong, who was set alight by a co-worker, Kuu Siau Lam, in June 2011. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour ruled last July that Mr Kee could not claim compensation from his company, S H Interdeco, because no “accident” had taken place.

But Judicial Commissioner George Wei overturned the ruling on Monday and pointed out that the WICA is a piece of “social legislation” and that the term “accident” should be defined broadly enough “such that it encompasses an event which is unexpected or unforeseen even though (it) was deliberately caused by another individual, rather than only events which happen without deliberate cause”.

While Parliament had amended WICA later in 2011 to disqualify claims arising from workplace fights, the amendments had not narrowed the definition of the term “accident” or sought to prevent compensation claims from all work-related fights.

“Instead, the goal was to ensure that employers did not have to compensate those who are ‘primarily responsible for the aggression’,” noted JC Wei.

The judge also disagreed with the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that Mr Kee’s injuries were not work-related.

Mr Kee, 24, had brushed an acrylic strip he was holding against Kuu, who scolded him. The incident escalated when Kuu’s demand for an apology was ignored.

Kuu then flung thinner on Mr Kee and set him on fire, causing the victim to suffer burns on 28 per cent of the total surface area of his face, neck, chest and both arms. Kuu, 65, was sentenced to four years’ jail for the offence.

Explaining why he felt the altercation was work-related, JC Wei said the pair were not “on frolics of their own” when the incident happened.

“There was no doubt that Kuu was the aggressor in the unanticipated attack, which occurred in the context of an argument between co-workers in a shared workspace as a result of an incident that took place when both were carrying out their work assignments,” the judge said.

“While it is true that an employee is not employed to quarrel, fight and ask for apologies, interaction between fellow employees/workers is surely an ordinary incident of employment — even if the workers are not engaged in the same task, and especially when they are working on assigned tasks in a shared workspace.”

Mr Tan Hee Joek was the lawyer acting for Mr Kee in this case, while S H Interdeco was represented by Mr Suppiah Thangaveloo.

The sum of compensation will be determined at a later date.