Tan Ah Tah J:

In this case the first and second plaintiffs were employees of the Century Engineering Co. (the company). The company was the owner of a motor van No SGB 2099 which was being driven by one Yong Chan Seng, a driver employed by the company. The first and second plaintiffs were by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment with the company travelling as passengers in the motor van which was being driven by Yong Chan Seng from the premises of the company, which was their employer, to a worksite where they were to carry on work as employees of the company. Owing to the negligence of Yong Chan Seng the motor van ran off the road and crashed into a tree resulting in the first and second plaintiffs sustaining bodily injuries. The third plaintiff who was the father of the second plaintiff was put to loss and expense.

The three plaintiffs commenced two separate proceedings claiming damages against the owner of the motor van and Yong Chan Seng. The two actions were consolidated and eventually judgment for damages was obtained by all three plaintiffs against the owner of the motor van and Yong Chan Seng.

The motor van was insured under a policy issued by the defendants and the present action has been brought by the three plaintiffs who are relying, inter alia, on s. 4(3) and s. 8(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap. 88, 1970 Edn.) (the Act).

It is submitted by Counsel for the defendants that because of the wording of exception (ii) to s. II of the policy the defendants are not liable to make any payment to the plaintiffs.

Exceptions (ii) and (iii) to s. 11 read as follows:

The Company shall not be liable in respect of

(i) ...

(ii) death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the Insured arising out of and in the course of such employment

(iii) death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from the motor vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises.

The wording of these two exceptions is based on the first two provisos to s. 4(1) of the Act.

In my opinion the effect of the words in brackets in exception (iii) is to make the defendants liable in respect of injuries sustained by the first and second plaintiffs who were passengers 'carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment'. In the case of Izzard v. Universal Insurance Co. [1937] AC 773 Lord Wright said at p. 779:

It is clear that though passenger risk in the full sense of the term is excluded, a certain limited class of passenger risk is specifically covered - namely, that described in the words in brackets in (c) quoted above which is in the form of an exception, and thus constitutes a positive cover.

Another matter which arises for consideration is the effect of cl 2 in s. II of the policy. Clause 2 reads as follows:

In terms of and subject to the limitations of and for the purposes of this section the Company will indemnify any authorized driver who is driving the motor vehicle provided that such authorized driver

(i) shall as though he were the Insured observe fulfil and be subject to the Terms of this Policy insofar as they can apply

(ii) is not entitled to indemnity under any other policy.

There is no doubt that Yong Chan Seng was the authorized driver of the motor van. It has also been conceded by Counsel for the defendants that Yong Chan Seng was not entitled to indemnity under any other policy. The first and second plaintiffs were clearly employees of the company and not of Yong Chan Seng. As to the meaning of the phrase 'the Terms of this Policy' it is relevant to refer to the words 'Now this Policy Witnesseth That in respect of events occurring during the Period of Insurance and subject to the terms, exceptions and conditions contained herein or endorsed hereon (hereinafter c