Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 2
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-01-06
- Judges: Audrey Lim J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Kanan Packrisamy
- Defendant/Respondent: Herbal Pharm Pte Ltd and others
- Legal Areas: Contract — Variation, Employment Law — Contract of service, Tort — Conversion
- Statutes Referenced: HP Entities had not made a claim against him in this Act
- Cases Cited: [2026] SGHC 2
- Judgment Length: 60 pages, 17,303 words
Summary
This case concerns a dispute between Kanan Packrisamy ("Mr Kanan") and several entities related to Herbal Pharm Pte Ltd ("HP Entities"). Mr Kanan was previously employed as the Chief Operating Officer and later the Chief Executive Officer of HP and its related entities. The HP Entities allege that Mr Kanan misappropriated company funds, while Mr Kanan claims he was wrongfully terminated from his employment. The High Court of Singapore had to determine the lawfulness of Mr Kanan's termination, as well as whether he had improperly taken company funds.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Mr Vejaiyan is the controlling mind behind the HP Entities, being the sole director of HP and the principal partner and/or manager of the other HP Entities. Mr Kanan and Mr Vejaiyan have known each other for about two decades, and in around 2011, Mr Vejaiyan engaged Mr Kanan to provide book-keeping and accounting services for the HP Entities.
In March 2018, Mr Kanan was appointed the Chief Operating Officer of HP, with a monthly salary of $9,000 and an annual performance appraisal bonus (known as a growth incentive bonus or "GIB"). In January 2021, Mr Kanan was appointed as Chief Finance and Operating Officer of HP+, with a monthly salary of $4,800. By January 2023, Mr Kanan was appointed the Chief Executive Officer of both HP and HP+, with a monthly salary of $6,000 at each entity.
It is undisputed that by December 2023, Mr Kanan's relationship with Mr Vejaiyan had deteriorated, due to a $10,000 advance that Mr Kanan obtained for a work trip to Africa in May 2023. Mr Vejaiyan claimed that Mr Kanan, in breach of trust, took the $10,000 advance without his approval.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. Whether Mr Kanan was separately employed by HPD, in addition to his roles at HP and HP+.
2. Whether Mr Kanan had caused the HP Entities to make unauthorized or improper payments to him or for his benefit.
3. Whether the termination of Mr Kanan's employment with HP and HP+ was lawful.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court found that the evidence did not support Mr Kanan's claim that he was separately employed by HPD. The court noted that the defendants had consistently disputed this, and there was no documentary evidence to corroborate Mr Kanan's assertion.
On the second issue, the court examined four categories of payments that the HP Entities alleged were unauthorized or improper:
1. Cash received by Mr Kanan: The court found that these payments were authorized as part of the established practice for handling cash withdrawals and reimbursements to Mr Vejaiyan.
2. A sum of $26,000 taken in June 2022: The court found that this was an authorized advance to Mr Kanan for business expenses.
3. A sum of $11,000 claimed by Mr Kanan as a gift: The court found that this was not a gift, but rather an unauthorized payment.
4. Payments purportedly for Mr Kanan's GIB: The court examined the parties' agreement on the computation of Mr Kanan's GIB and found that certain payments to Mr Kanan's credit card and for his personal expenses were not authorized.
On the third issue, the court analyzed the events leading up to the termination of Mr Kanan's employment, including the $10,000 advance for the Africa trip and the subsequent demotion and reduction in salary. The court found that the termination of Mr Kanan's employment was lawful, as his conduct in relation to the $10,000 advance amounted to a breach of trust.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed Mr Kanan's claims against the defendants and upheld the counterclaims brought by the HP Entities. The court found that Mr Kanan had misappropriated company funds and that his termination was justified. The court ordered Mr Kanan to repay the unauthorized payments he had received, totaling approximately $41,000.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides valuable guidance on the legal principles governing employment contracts, particularly in the context of senior executives with significant financial responsibilities. The court's analysis of the authorized and unauthorized payments highlights the importance of clear policies and procedures for handling company funds, as well as the need for robust oversight and accountability measures.
The case also underscores the significance of the duty of trust and confidence that exists between an employer and a senior employee. The court's finding that Mr Kanan's conduct in relation to the $10,000 advance amounted to a breach of this duty serves as a cautionary tale for executives who may be tempted to misuse company resources for personal gain.
Overall, this judgment is a useful reference for legal practitioners advising clients on employment law matters, particularly in cases involving allegations of financial impropriety by senior employees.
Legislation Referenced
- HP Entities had not made a claim against him in this Act
Cases Cited
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHC 2 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.