Case Details
- Citation: [2017] SGHC 151
- Title: Long Kim Wing v LTX-Credence Singapore Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 30 June 2017
- Judge: Woo Bih Li J
- Case Number: Suit No 906 of 2014
- Coram: Woo Bih Li J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Long Kim Wing
- Defendant/Respondent: LTX-Credence Singapore Pte Ltd
- Legal Area: Employment Law — Wrongful Dismissal
- Key Themes: Misconduct; due inquiry; termination without notice; severance entitlement
- Counsel for Plaintiff: Ganga Avadiar and Eileen Yeo (Advocatus Law LLP)
- Counsel for Defendant: Jared Chen and Rich Seet (WongPartnership LLP)
- Judgment Length: 31 pages, 15,310 words
Summary
Long Kim Wing v LTX-Credence Singapore Pte Ltd concerned an employee’s claim for wrongful dismissal and related employment entitlements after his employer terminated him for alleged misconduct. The plaintiff, a former director and employee of the defendant, was dismissed by a letter dated 14 June 2012. He later sued for sums said to be payable under his employment terms, including salary in lieu of notice and severance, contending that the dismissal was not carried out in accordance with the contractual requirement of a “due inquiry”.
The High Court, per Woo Bih Li J, addressed multiple heads of claim. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for director’s fees and for certain expenses, largely on evidential and credibility grounds. On the wrongful dismissal issues, the court focused on whether the defendant had established misconduct and whether it had conducted a “due inquiry” before dismissing the plaintiff under the relevant contractual clause in the defendant’s General Service Terms (“GST”). The court ultimately found in favour of the defendant on the core wrongful dismissal dispute, thereby denying the plaintiff the additional sums claimed beyond the amount the defendant had already agreed to pay.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Long Kim Wing, had served as both a director and an employee of LTX-Credence Singapore Pte Ltd (the “LTX group”). By a letter dated 14 June 2012, he was dismissed from employment for alleged misconduct. He was also removed as a director on 7 September 2012. The plaintiff’s dismissal letter set out a partial list of specific reasons, which broadly fell into two categories: (1) alleged involvement in the creation and use of a forged offer letter concerning another employee, ST Lee; and (2) alleged failure to obtain prior approval before making unauthorised advance payments to ST Lee, coupled with alleged deception and obstruction during an investigation.
After his dismissal, the plaintiff claimed that the termination was wrongful. Under the terms of his employment, he argued he was entitled to severance pay and salary in lieu of notice. He quantified his claim using different figures for his monthly salary, including car allowance, and also claimed additional sums. The defendant, however, maintained that it had lawfully terminated him for misconduct and therefore he was not entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice or severance. Notably, the defendant agreed that the plaintiff was entitled to a smaller sum of $12,505.05, comprising salary in lieu of unconsumed leave and a pro-rata share of the 13th month salary, less the employee’s CPF contribution and less unearned wages for the period from 15 June to 30 June 2012.
There was also a practical dispute about payment. The plaintiff received a cheque for $12,505.05 but declined to present it for payment. The court observed that the parties were largely aligned on the components of the agreed amount, with the main disagreement being the plaintiff’s additional claims for salary in lieu of notice and severance, which depended on whether the defendant could prove misconduct. In addition, the plaintiff claimed a further $34,128, representing two months’ salary including car allowance, asserting that the defendant had dismissed him without “due inquiry” as required by clause 5(1) of the GST.
Beyond wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff also pursued claims for director’s fees, reimbursement of expenses, and damages for alleged failure to procure a similar job due to the wrongful termination. The court dealt with these claims first because they were relatively straightforward on the evidence. The plaintiff alleged that he had been promised director’s fees by a senior executive, Daniel Vincent Wallace, and he claimed reimbursement of general entertainment and travel expenses. He also claimed damages for loss of employment opportunities, asserting that the wrongful termination breached a duty of trust and mutual confidence.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issues were whether the defendant had (i) established misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal under the employment contract, and (or) (ii) complied with the contractual requirement of a “due inquiry” before dismissing the plaintiff without notice. The GST clause at the heart of the dispute provided that the company may, after due inquiry, dismiss without notice an employee on grounds of misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service. The plaintiff’s case was that even if misconduct was alleged, the defendant did not conduct the requisite due inquiry, and therefore he was entitled to additional compensation.
A secondary but important issue concerned the evidential burden and proof of the plaintiff’s misconduct. The court had to assess the specific allegations in the dismissal letter, including the forged offer letter and the unauthorised advance payments, and determine whether the defendant’s evidence met the standard required in a wrongful dismissal claim. This included examining whether the defendant’s eventual narrowing of the unauthorised payments allegation (to one sum of $30,000) affected the overall assessment of misconduct.
Finally, the court also had to determine whether the plaintiff’s ancillary claims—director’s fees, expenses, and damages for failure to obtain similar employment—were supported by credible evidence and legal principle. These issues required the court to consider whether there was a definite promise for director’s fees, whether expenses were actually unpaid and properly documented, and whether the alleged wrongful termination could found damages on the pleaded theory.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the plaintiff’s claim for director’s fees, the court adopted a straightforward contractual and evidential approach. The plaintiff did not produce Wallace as a witness. The court noted that Wallace had left the LTX group sometime in 2012. Even accepting the plaintiff’s evidence at face value, the court found that Wallace’s alleged statements amounted to a tentative attempt to “help” the plaintiff obtain director’s fees rather than a definite promise that the plaintiff would be paid such fees. The absence of any agreed quantum further reinforced the court’s view that any discussion was not sufficiently certain to create an enforceable obligation.
The court also considered the plaintiff’s conduct after dismissal. The plaintiff did not ask the defendant about payment of director’s fees until his lawyer’s first letter of demand dated 2 October 2013, more than one year after the termination letter. The court treated this lack of follow-up as inconsistent with the existence of a firm promise. It therefore dismissed the director’s fees claim.
On the expenses claim, the court scrutinised both credibility and documentation. The plaintiff claimed $8,000 for flight costs, hotel costs, and related expenses for travel to Malaysia and the Philippines in 2012. During cross-examination, however, he accepted that he had already been reimbursed his expenses for the Philippines trip, yet he continued to claim the full $8,000. The court regarded this as a negative factor for credibility. The remainder of the claim was also not supported by documentary evidence. The plaintiff said he had left supporting documents in his office on 7 June 2012 when he was told to go on administrative leave, but he could not specify which documents were missing. By contrast, the defendant produced calculations by an accountant (Karen Lim) with supporting documents, which showed an overpayment in June 2012 payroll and a balance due of $423.21. The court therefore dismissed the $8,000 expenses claim, subject to the already-agreed balance.
Turning to wrongful dismissal, the court began by identifying the contractual framework. Clause 5(1) of the GST permitted dismissal without notice only “after due inquiry” and on grounds of misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of express or implied conditions of service. The plaintiff’s claim for an additional two months’ salary was premised on the proposition that the defendant did not conduct the required due inquiry and that proper investigation and procedures would have taken at least two months. The defendant, conversely, argued that it had lawfully terminated the plaintiff for misconduct and therefore he was not entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice or severance.
Although the extract provided is truncated, the court’s approach in the portion available shows that it treated misconduct and due inquiry as interlinked but distinct inquiries. The court first assessed whether misconduct was established, because if misconduct was proven, the plaintiff’s entitlement to notice and severance would be defeated. The court also recognised that the plaintiff’s additional claim under clause 5(1) GST depended on whether the dismissal process satisfied the “due inquiry” requirement. In other words, even if misconduct were alleged, the contractual condition of due inquiry could potentially affect the compensation outcome.
In analysing misconduct, the court considered the dismissal letter’s specific allegations. The letter listed, among other things, the plaintiff’s alleged role in creating a forged offer letter and attempting to use it to deceive; his alleged failure to seek approval for unauthorised advance payments to ST Lee; his alleged failure to inform his supervisor about those payments; and his alleged deception and obstruction during the investigation relating to the forged offer letter. The court noted that at trial the defendant narrowed the unauthorised payments complaint to one sum of $30,000. This narrowing is legally significant because it frames what the defendant ultimately relied upon to justify dismissal, and it affects the court’s assessment of whether the remaining allegations were sufficient to constitute misconduct inconsistent with the conditions of service.
In the portion of the judgment available, the court also addressed the parties’ agreed figures and the arithmetic consequences of the legal findings. The defendant agreed the plaintiff was entitled to $12,505.05, which the court treated as undisputed components of salary/leave entitlements. The remaining dispute was whether the defendant could avoid paying salary in lieu of notice and severance by proving misconduct. The court’s reasoning therefore had a direct financial impact: if misconduct was established, the plaintiff’s claims for $17,064 (one month’s salary in lieu of notice, including car allowance) and severance (calculated based on 22.67 years of service) would fail.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for director’s fees and for the $8,000 expenses, and it also rejected the wrongful dismissal claim insofar as it sought additional compensation beyond the $12,505.05 already agreed by the defendant. The practical effect was that the plaintiff was not awarded salary in lieu of notice or severance on the basis that the defendant had justified dismissal for misconduct and/or complied with the contractual requirements for termination.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s refusal to present the cheque for $12,505.05 did not change the court’s assessment of entitlement; rather, it reflected a separate payment conduct issue. The judgment’s outcome means that, for employment practitioners, the case underscores the importance of proving misconduct and of aligning the termination process with contractual “due inquiry” requirements, while also showing that ancillary claims will fail where they are unsupported by credible evidence or lack contractual certainty.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is instructive for employers and employees in Singapore because it illustrates how contractual termination provisions interact with wrongful dismissal claims. Clause 5(1) GST required “due inquiry” before dismissal without notice. The plaintiff attempted to convert alleged procedural deficiencies into a monetary claim for additional salary. The court’s analysis demonstrates that such claims depend heavily on the proof of misconduct and on the evidential record regarding what investigations were conducted and how the employer reached its decision.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the case also highlights evidential discipline. The court’s dismissal of director’s fees and expenses claims turned on the absence of a definite promise, lack of follow-up, and insufficient documentation. These are practical reminders that employment litigation often turns not only on legal principles but also on credibility, contemporaneous records, and the ability to substantiate claimed sums.
Finally, the case contributes to the broader body of Singapore employment law on misconduct-based termination and the contractual framing of notice and severance. While the precise doctrinal statements in the truncated portion are not fully visible here, the structure of the judgment shows a method: identify the contractual entitlement, assess misconduct, then determine whether procedural requirements such as “due inquiry” affect compensation. Lawyers advising on termination strategy or preparing litigation will find this analytical sequencing useful.
Legislation Referenced
- No specific statute was expressly identified in the provided judgment extract.
- Note: The extract references Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) contributions in the calculation of agreed sums, but does not identify any specific CPF statute or regulation.
Cases Cited
- No specific cited cases were provided in the extract. (The metadata indicates the case is self-referential as “[2017] SGHC 151”, but the “Cases Cited” list is not populated in the user-provided material.)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2017] SGHC 151 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.