LITT
Try LITT free
Kanan Packrisamy v Herbal Pharm Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHC 2
The High Court dismissed Kanan Packrisamy’s wrongful termination claim against Herbal Pharm but awarded him unpaid salary and bonuses. The court simultaneously upheld the defendants' counterclaims for misappropriated funds, ordering significant repayments from the claimant.
Prashant Mudgal v SAP Asia Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 15
The court affirmed that the implied term of mutual trust and confidence exists in employment contracts under Singapore law, and that an employer breaches this term if it conducts itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and
Castillon Security (S) Pte Ltd v Muhammad Shaun Eric bin Abdullah (alias De Silva Shaun Eric) [2025] SGHC 75
The court held that government grants received by an employer based on the employment of its employees should be apportioned between divisions for profit-sharing purposes, even if the employer chose to reflect them as 'other income' in its accounts. The court also affirmed that a
Höptner, Georg Alexander v Three Fins Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 26
The court held that the defendant's summary dismissal of the claimant was wrongful because the defendant failed to establish that it had made a determination for 'Termination for Cause' as required by the employment contract, and the alleged breaches were technical and did not ju
Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd v The estate of Tan Kiat Lan, deceased (Integrated Power Solutions Pte Ltd and others, third parties) [2025] SGHC 160
The court held that while the plaintiff proved the existence of a fraudulent scheme, it failed to prove loss for the majority of transactions, and for the transactions where loss was proven, the plaintiff had already been fully compensated via a settlement agreement with a joint
Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 10
An employer is justified in dismissing an employee for gross misconduct where the employee has breached express contractual confidentiality obligations by accessing patient records without authorisation, and the employer has followed its internal disciplinary procedures.
Vigar, Andrew v XL Insurance Company Se Singapore Branch [2025] SGHCR 12
The court held that an implied term in fact requiring an employer to comply with internal company policies is not necessary for business efficacy, and that broad implied duties of mutual trust and confidence do not extend to procedural requirements like promptness or thoroughness
MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94
In MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions — Interlocutory injunction, Employment Law — Contract of service.
Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29
The Singapore High Court dismissed Shopee's application for an interim injunction against a former employee joining ByteDance, ruling that the employer failed to provide specific evidence of irreparable harm or a serious question to be tried regarding the non-competition clause.
BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and another v Sumit Grover [2024] SGHC 206
The court held that the Employment Agreement was binding on the defendant, the defence of non est factum failed, and the employer was entitled to terminate the employment for failure to meet the performance ratio.
Swift Maids Pte Ltd and another v Cheong Yi Qiang and others [2023] SGHC 317
An employee breaches their employment contract by engaging in competitive activities and failing to devote their time and skills to their employer's interests, but nominal damages are awarded if the employer fails to prove actual loss.
Rida Global Pte Ltd v Lim Chuan Ren Jonathan [2023] SGHC 21
The court held that proceedings in the ECT should be transferred to the High Court where there is a significant overlap of factual and legal issues with a High Court suit, and where the complexity of the issues (such as fiduciary duties) warrants legal representation.
Hossain Rakib v Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 166
Section 38(5) of the Employment Act does not prohibit an employee from claiming overtime pay for hours worked beyond the 72-hour monthly limit if the employee was required by the employer to perform such work.
Walton International Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Yau Kwok Seng Winston and another [2011] SGHC 144
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, conspiracy, and other torts, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove solicitation of staff or that the defendants' actions caused the plaintiffs' losses.
Brightway Petrochemical Group Singapore Pte Ltd v Ang Lily [2007] SGHC 154
The High Court allowed the appeal in Brightway Petrochemical Group v Ang Lily, ruling the Assistant Commissioner for Labour lacked jurisdiction as the respondent was not a 'workman' under the Employment Act. The court set aside the order and made no order as to costs due to the late jurisdictional o
Cosmic Insurance Corp Ltd v United Oil Co Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 85
Hospital expenses paid by an employer under s 14(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act do not constitute 'compensation' under the Act, and therefore an insurer is not entitled to be indemnified for such expenses under s 18(b) of the Act.
GYC Financial Planning Pte Ltd and Another v Prudential Assurance Company Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2006] SGHC 71
The court held that the termination of the Corporate Manager Agreement was valid as the defendant gave sufficient notice and had good reason due to the Financial Advisers Act prohibiting corporate entities from acting as representatives of exempt financial advisers. Furthermore,
Poh Kwee Eng v Hua Goi Co. (Pte) Ltd [2006] SGHC 235
In Poh Kwee Eng v Hua Goi Co. (Pte) Ltd [2006] SGHC 235, the High Court held the employer liable for workplace injuries caused by an unsafe hoisting system. The court awarded the plaintiff interlocutory judgment and 85% of costs, emphasizing the employer's non-delegable duty to ensure equipment safe
NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Ltd and Another v Next of kin of Narayasamy s/o Ramasamy, deceased [2006] SGHC 162
An accident arises out of employment when the exertion producing the accident is too great for the workman at the time, regardless of whether the exertion was ordinary or whether the workman had a pre-existing condition.