https://mothership.sg/2026/06/woman-rejects-work-injury-payout-sue-employer-loses-case/

S'pore woman rejects work injury payout worth 6 months' salary, sues employer instead, loses case & ordered to pay S$11,577 legal costs

The reason given for her objection to the payout was that the settlement was "insufficient".

Xueting Wu

June 12, 2026, 07:33 PM

Photos from Canva (for illustrative purposes only) and Mothership

After hurting her ankle at work, a security officer was offered a work injury compensation worth more than six months of her salary, but chose to reject it and sue her employer for negligence instead.

She ended up losing the suit as she was unable to prove that her employer breached its duty of care, according to a judgment dated May 25.

The District Judge Evans Ng called her case "wholly meritless".

In a separate judgment dated Jun. 9, he ordered the woman to pay a total of about S$11,577 in legal costs to her employer.

The accident

The injury happened on Aug. 4, 2021, when Nirmala Thangavellu was deployed by her employer, Acestes, to a condo in Sengkang.

Stationed at an entrance of the condo, she encountered a delivery rider who refused to stop and provide his particulars to her, she testified in an affidavit.

She claimed that while trying to "chase" the rider, she lost her footing on the uneven ground and injured her right ankle.

CCTV footage showed that Nirmala fell, but after appearing to walk smoothly. No deliveryman was seen in the video, which was played several times at the trial.

Nirmala's lawyers argued that the video shown at court was cut too short, and the preceding portion of the CCTV footage would have shown the delivery rider's actions.

The work injury claim

A claim was made under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), and it was assessed by the Commissioner for Labour at a sum that was more than six months' salary for her at the time.

But Nirmala submitted a notice of objection, and seemed to have withdrawn her claim later, according to the May 25 judgement.

More than a year later, she engaged lawyers to file a suit against Acestes for negligence.

The reason given for the objection was that the "settlement under WICA is insufficient".

Lacking support for her allegations

Ng pointed out in the judgment that Nirmala was the only witness for her case.

He said her evidence of any negligence was limited to saying that "proper safeguards and support were not put in place to prevent such accidents", without giving specifics on what could be implemented and whether they were feasible or reasonable.

Nirmala's lawyers also did not attempt to prove that her employer breached its duty of care, Ng added.

Their closing submissions did not make such an allegation, but argued that Nirmala's employer "owed her a duty of care", and that she was "entitled to full compensation for the losses suffered".

Unable to find any material supporting the negligence allegation, Ng dismissed the case.

Costs

Acestes' lawyers sought, among other things, S$20,000 or S$25,000 in party-and-party costs, according to the Jun. 9 judgement.

Nirmala's lawyers, however, proposed during the cost negotiations that Nirmala should not have to bear costs because she is not well-off financially.

Ng asserted that this was "rarely a sufficient reason for departing from the general rule".

He also questioned this claim about her financial state, highlighting that she has been able to pay her own disbursements for court fees, which were around S$1,400, and can afford to engage four senior lawyers from two different firms.

Ng gave a 25 per cent discount on the minimum for pre-trial work costs in negligence cases, as suggested by the State Courts, lowering it from S$9,000 to S$6,750.

Adding that on top of S$2,500 for trial work, S$1,000 for post-trial work, and S$1,327.70 as disbursement to Acestes, the total fees Nirmala was instructed to pay were S$11,577.70.