Video Surveillance System on Higher Value Construction Sites – Possible Impacts on how Common Law Work Injury Claims are Litigated
As of 1 June 2024, all construction sites in Singapore with a contract value of SGD 5 million and above will be required to have a video surveillance system installed. This new regulations could significantly impact the litigation of common law work injury compensation claims. However, the full extent of these changes will unfold with time.
By Donald Spencer, Securus Legal LLC Singapore
Compulsory video surveillance system at high value worksites
The newly enacted Regulation 36B of the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations provide that as of 1 June 2024 every occupier of a relevant worksite must ensure that a video surveillance system is installed, kept in good working order and is operational at all times.
A “relevant worksite” is defined in Regulation 36A as one in which the contract value of the construction work exceeds $5 million. And “construction work” is defined as meaning any building operation or work of engineering construction.
According to the Third Schedule of the Regulations, video surveillance must be installed at:
Every area, including every floor of a building under construction, where relevant work is carried out or intended to be carried out.
Every area where lifting operations are carried out or intended to be carried out or lifting machines are used (for example, cranes, gondolas or mobile elevated working platforms).
Every area where industrial trucks (for example, forklifts, excavators or steam rollers) are used.
Every area where vehicular traffic may cause danger to persons carrying out any work.
Every loading or unloading area.
Every confined space where any work is carried out or intended to be carried out, if a video surveillance system can be safely installed
The video footage captured must meet certain standards and be exportable in a prescribed file format (Regulation 36B(2)). Footage must be retained for 30 days, or for 180 days if a reportable incident occurs (Regulation 36B(3)).
According to the Ministry of Manpower’s website, video surveillance systems are intended for:
Surveillance
Identification of workplace safety and health (WSH) risks
Facilitation of incident investigation and corrective actions
Deterring unsafe workplace behaviours
A guidance document by the WSH Council suggests that video surveillance will help companies manage risks and improve workplace safety by enabling continuous monitoring, serving as a deterrent, and acting as a training tool.
Impact on Common Law Work Injury Claims
The introduction of mandatory video surveillance systems is expected to significantly affect how common law work injury claims are litigated in two ways.
Video footage as evidence of a failure to take reasonable steps to keep employees safe.
An employer's duty of care includes providing adequate training and supervision to employees. It is likely that the Courts will increasingly look at whether a video surveillance system was in operation and how it was utilised when determining if there has been a breach of duty by the employer. There are two reasons for this.
A video surveillance system compliments the current regime of carrying out risk assessments and implementing safe work procedures as it provides a potential feedback mechanism for employers to use. An employee monitoring video footage or reviewing footage after minor incidents may provide a means by which a company can mitigate the risk of there being a serious injury.
While the Regulations apply to worksites with a contract value of SGD 5 million or more, it is anticipated that the use of video surveillance will extend to lower-value sites over time as companies have had to invest in cameras in order to secure the high value contracts and have become used to using video cameras into their work practices. Furthermore, there is a reasonable prospect that Insurers will make the installation of use of video surveillance a condition of coverage if such systems are shows to be effective in reducing claims.
Video footage as evidence of how the accident happened.
Since the camera locations identified in the Third Schedule suggest extensive coverage of construction sites, one may expect a boom in the use of video evidence to show how an accident happened. This may have the effect of preventing meritless claims cluttering the court or may facilitate an injured worker accessing compensation awards which they may desperately need.
Presently, video evidence is rarely encountered in workplace injury claims. However, videos are common in road traffic accident disputes.
The rapid uptake of in-vehicle video cameras in recent years has transformed to how traffic accident disputes are fought when video is available. Instead of eyewitness testimony forming the crux of a decision, often it is the video footage captured by an in-vehicle camera which is the key evidence.
In the recent road traffic case of Alagappen Chellathurai v Hou Hong Gang and another [2023] SLR(StC) 248, the registrar opined that it is important that a court should be able to make full use of video evidence in resolving factual disputes. The registrar noted that the Singapore courts have “repeatedly emphasised that objective and contemporaneous evidence is more reliable, and carries more weight, than evidence based on memory” and that video evidence “offers a court the experience of witnessing a disputed event first-hand without learning it through the second-hand filter of a witness who may be unreliable or partisan”. Further, video has a clear advantage when the dispute event occurred many years ago as “the ability of honest witnesses to recall accurately the event would have been degraded” due to passage of time.
These judicial observations apply with at least equal force for workplace injury cases. Indeed, video evidence would have the added benefit in a work injury claim as it will capture the state of the building work and site conditions that existed at the time of the accident and will also show what equipment was being used and in what way. These are factual issues that can be hard to resolve once the work site has been completed and workers have scattered.
In Alagappen Chellathurai the registrar held that the video taken from a bus were not hearsay evidence and that a witness is not required to testify what he had seen or heard on a video recording as a video recording speaks for itself. This is in contrast to how video evidence is treated and received in other jurisdictions.
The court’s readiness to consider video evidence may need to be revisited in the future in the light of increasingly sophisticated and accessible software which allows videos to be manipulated and faked. A recent example is the fake video purportedly showing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong promoting an investment product which was circulated on-line in December 2023. If such technology creates convincing videos, it may become increasingly common for witnesses to be called to address the issues of authenticity and contents and to testify about the chain of custody of any video evidence taken from surveillance cameras.
A further aspect of practice which may evolve is the standardisation of how video evidence is captured, preserved and shared between parties. A protocol may be developed in which ensures video quality and reliability.
Concluding thoughts
The new video surveillance regulations may well change how common law work injury disputes are fought. By providing objective, contemporaneous evidence, any video surveillance footage capturing the accident or an act of negligence is likely to become the focal point of any trial on liability. That said, the full impact of the regulations will only become clear over time. Possible future ramifications may include video surveillance becoming the norm on lower value projects and may also include the strengthening of practices and protocols for handling video evidence