Court rejects compensation bid by man acquitted over failure to pay worker’s medical bill

A former director of an engineering company who was charged over the firm’s failure to pay the medical bill of an injured worker was acquitted by a district judge in 2023 after a trial.

Mr Akbar Ali Abdul Majeed then sought compensation of $10,000 – the maximum prescribed by law – as well as legal costs, alleging that the prosecution against him was “frivolous or vexatious”.

After his bid was rejected by the district judge, he appealed to the High Court.

On Feb 24, High Court judge Aidan Xu dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision.

In his judgment, Justice Xu rejected Mr Ali’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to commence or continue criminal proceedings against him.

The judge said there was sufficient evidence to justify the prosecution.

He noted that the district judge ultimately acquitted him on a point that was not obvious or glaring.

Justice Xu also rejected Mr Ali’s claim that there were improper motives behind the prosecution.

Mr Ali was a director of Newtec Engineering from Sept 10, 2018, to Nov 28, 2018. 

On Nov 8, 2018, a foreign employee fell from a height of 3m while working, and was taken to the National University Hospital (NUH) for treatment.

Mr Ali signed a letter of guarantee to NUH, dated Nov 14, 2018, which stated that Newtec would pay for the worker’s medical expenses. 

Two weeks after he signed the document, he handed over the company to his brother-in-law and resigned from his directorship.

The employee was hospitalised until Feb 7, 2019.

On Feb 12 that year, NUH issued an invoice for $213,258.85 for the worker’s medical expenses, which Newtec did not pay.

Prosecutors from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) brought a criminal charge against Mr Ali under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.

The charge alleged that Mr Ali had consented to Newtec’s contravention of an employment regulation, which states that the employer must bear the costs of the foreign employee’s upkeep in Singapore, including the provision of medical treatment.

Mr Ali, who was represented by Mr Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Yakub, contested the charge in a trial.

Prosecution witnesses who testified included the MOM investigation officer and a manager from the ministry’s work pass division, who confirmed there were no valid medical insurance policies at the time of the accident.

After the prosecution closed its case, the defence made a submission of “no case to answer”.

This meant Mr Ali was seeking an acquittal without having to present a defence, on grounds that insufficient evidence has been presented by the prosecution.

District Judge Kok Shu-en acquitted Mr Ali without calling on him to give his defence.

The district judge said for Mr Ali to be found guilty of consenting to Newtec’s offence, it had to be shown that he knew the firm would fail to bear the cost of the worker’s medical treatment.

However, there was no evidence Mr Ali knew that Newtec would fail to pay the NUH invoice. 

Therefore, the prosecution had not established that he had consented to the failure to pay the medical expenses.

After his acquittal, Mr Ali sought legal costs and compensation.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, orders for costs and compensation may be made where there is an acquittal, and if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious.

Mr Ali contended that his successful “no case to answer” argument during the trial showed the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious.

In his judgment, Justice Xu said a submission of “no case to answer” looks at the evidential sufficiency in establishing a case against the accused during a trial, while the standard for a frivolous or vexatious prosecution looks at the evidential sufficiency in deciding if a case was fit to be tried.

The two standards cannot be equated, he said.

“Taking Mr Ali’s argument to its logical conclusion, it would erase the line between the initial decision to prosecute and the outcome of the case.

“This would lead to an absurd situation where every acquittal could be seen as proof that the case should never have been tried. This cannot be so.”

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Akbar Ali s/o Abdul Majeed v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 32

Shanmugam, Tan See Leng sue Bloomberg and reporter for defamation