LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Vandashima (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another v Tiong Sing Lean and Another [2006] SGHC 132

An employee who breaches fiduciary duties and confidentiality clauses in an employment contract can be restrained by an injunction from competing with the employer, provided the restraint is reasonable in time and geographical scope.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Teo Chin Kiang Willie v MAE Engineering Ltd [2006] SGHC 113

The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff's resignation was unlawful, as the defendant had accepted the resignation, effectively terminating the service agreement by mutual agreement.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Saldur Rahman v Mayban General Assurance Bhd and Another [2005] SGHC 88

A workman's claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not deemed withdrawn by the mere filing of a common law action if the Commissioner for Labour was not notified of the intention to sue and the action was not prosecuted to finality.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Kamis bin Satari v Nasir Natarajan [2005] SGHC 188

A workman who has received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot pursue a common law claim for damages unless the compensation is first repaid, even if the compensation was received under a mistake.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Magaforce Construction v Khamso Wirat and Others [2005] SGHC 186

In Magaforce Construction v Khamso Wirat [2005], the High Court ruled that a principal is not liable for a sub-contractor's transport-related injuries under section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, emphasizing strict statutory interpretation over broad liability claims.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Tullett Prebon (Singapore) Ltd and Another v Chua Leong Chuan Simon and Others and Another Suit [2005] SGHC 150

An employer is entitled to restrain an employee from working for another employer in breach of a valid employment contract, even if the court cannot compel the employee to perform the original contract.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Pacific Autocom Enterprise Pte Ltd v Chia Wah Siang [2004] SGHC 89

In Pacific Autocom Enterprise Pte Ltd v Chia Wah Siang [2004] SGHC 89, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages for breach of duty following a distributorship termination. The court rejected claims for internal software costs but upheld damages for operational losses.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Master Contract Services Pte Ltd v Sevugan Kalyanasundaram [2004] SGHC 278

The additional compensation of one-quarter payable under paragraph 2(3) of the Third Schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for a worker requiring constant attention is in addition to the maximum compensation sum prescribed in paragraph 2(2).

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2004] SGHC 2

Section 13(2) of the Employment Act is a deeming provision where continuous absence for more than two days without leave or reasonable excuse, or without informing the employer, constitutes a deemed repudiation of the contract of service, entitling the employer to terminate the c

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Asiawerks Global Investment Group Pte Ltd v Ismail bin Syed Ahmad and Another [2003] SGHC 269

In Asiawerks Global Investment Group v Ismail bin Syed Ahmad, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims. Despite finding a breach of duty regarding diverted business, the court ruled that no damages were recoverable as the plaintiff failed to prove actual loss or illicit profits.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Asia Business Forum Pte Ltd v Long Ai Sin and Another [2003] SGHC 187

An employer's general business organisation and management methods are not trade secrets and cannot be protected post-employment unless they are of exceptional sensitivity.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Comfort Management Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 16

Condition 2(d) of a work permit, which prohibits foreign workers from engaging in activities outside those listed in Annex A, includes a prohibition against driving company vehicles outside construction sites in the course of employment. Section 5(3) of the Employment of Foreign

Sushant Shukla· ·10 min read
Singapore

Abdul Latif Bin Mohamed Tahiar (trading as Canary Agencies) v Saeed Husain s/o Hakim Gulam Mohiudin (trading as United Limousine) [2003] SGHC 15

An employee owes a fiduciary duty to their employer to act faithfully, and soliciting customers for a competing business while still employed constitutes a breach of that duty for which the employee is liable in damages.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Shepherd Andrew v BIL International Ltd [2003] SGHC 145

In Shepherd Andrew v BIL International Ltd [2003] SGHC 145, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for severance and bonuses, and the defendant's counterclaim. The court ruled that employers cannot use ex post facto misconduct allegations to retrospectively justify contract repudiation.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

Walsh Terence William v Peregrine Systems Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 117

The court held that the words 'expected to be for a period of two (2) years' in the letter of offer were inconsistent with a fixed-term employment contract, and that the plaintiff failed to prove a common mistake for rectification.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lee Keng Hiong trading as William Trade & Tran-Services v Ramlan bin Haron [2002] SGHC 33

The court held that the foreman (Putiyan) was an employee of the respondent (WTTS) and that the respondent was liable for the workman's compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Rahenah bte L Mande v Baxter Healthcare Pte Ltd and Another [2002] SGHC 320

Section 33(2)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act prohibits a workman from maintaining a common law action for damages against an employer while an application for compensation under the Act is pending before the Commissioner for Labour.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Christian Schuler v New Era of Networks (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 220

Summary dismissal of an employee is justified where the employee acts in blatant contravention of clear instructions from the employer regarding payment controls, thereby breaching the duty of fidelity and good faith.

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2002] SGHC 200

The court held that in a master-servant relationship, there is no implied right to natural justice unless the contract or relevant regulations expressly provide for it. Reinstatement is not a remedy available in court for wrongful dismissal, as it is a power reserved for the Mini

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Chua Ah Beng v The Commissioner For Labour [2002] SGHC 197

In Chua Ah Beng v The Commissioner For Labour, the High Court clarified that section 33(3) of the WCA allows injured workmen a choice of forum. While the court dismissed the mandamus application, it established that common law claims do not permanently bar future WCA compensation.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Chua Ah Beng v C & P Holdings Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 88

An employer is not liable for negligence or breach of statutory duty when an experienced employee performs a simple task using their own judgment, and the accident was not caused by a failure of the employer's system or safety measures.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Hui Cheng Wan Agnes v Nippon SP Tech (S) Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 271

An employer is entitled to terminate an employment contract in accordance with its terms, specifically by providing notice or payment in lieu of notice, even without cause.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Hui Cheng Wan Agnes v Nippon SP Tech (S) Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 208

The court held that the Defendants were entitled to terminate the Plaintiff's employment by giving one month's salary in lieu of notice under the employment contract, and that the Defendants had not established misconduct justifying dismissal for cause.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Noor Mohamed bin Mumtaz Shah v Apollo Enterprises Ltd (trading as Apollo Hotel Singapore) [2000] SGHC 58

The court held that in a redundancy situation, there is a presumption that a dismissal is on the ground of redundancy, and the onus shifts to the employer to rebut this presumption.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read