Case Details
- Citation: [2013] SGHC 279
- Title: Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 26 December 2013
- Judges: Woo Bih Li J
- Case Number: Suit No 1036 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal No 286 of 2013 and No 287 of 2013)
- Tribunal/Court: High Court
- Coram: Woo Bih Li J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard
- Defendant/Respondent: Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd
- Counsel Name(s): Plaintiff in person; M K Eusuff Ali and Lucinda Lim (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the defendant
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure – striking out; Contract – contractual terms – implied terms; Employment Law – contract of service – breach
- Statutes Referenced: Not specified in the provided extract
- Cases Cited: [2013] SGHC 279 (as per metadata); Alexander Proudfoot Productivity Services Co S’pore Pte Ltd v Sim Hua Ngee Alvin and another appeal [1992] 3 SLR(R) 933; Teh Guek Ngor Engelin nee Tan and others v Chia Ee Lin Evelyn and another [2005] 3 SLR(R) 22; Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation) [1997] 3 WLR 95; Hartley v Harman (1840) 11 Ad & E 798; Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 577
- Judgment Length: 4 pages, 2,172 words
Summary
In Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd ([2013] SGHC 279), the High Court (Woo Bih Li J) dismissed an employee’s appeals arising from two interlocutory decisions in an employment-related suit. The employee, who had tendered his resignation, claimed that the resignation amounted to constructive dismissal because the employer allegedly persecuted him due to his homosexuality. The court upheld the Assistant Registrar’s orders (i) expunging two paragraphs of the employee’s affidavit for breaching a prior discovery order, and (ii) striking out the employee’s claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was otherwise legally untenable.
The substantive dispute turned on the measure of damages for termination of employment where the employment contract expressly provided a fixed payment in lieu of notice. Even assuming (as the employer did for the purposes of the striking out application) that the employee had been constructively dismissed, the court held that the employee could not recover damages beyond what the contract stipulated for lawful termination. The court further rejected the employee’s attempt to rely on Malik to claim additional “stigma” or consequential damages, finding that the pleading and evidential basis did not properly establish a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, nor did it particularise the alleged losses in a way that could ground a contractual claim for damages exceeding the notice-based entitlement.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff (“P”) was employed by the defendant (“Employer”), a department store. P tendered his resignation on 24 August 2012. Although P initiated the resignation, he later asserted that the resignation was not voluntary and should instead be characterised as constructive dismissal. His constructive dismissal theory was linked to allegations that the Employer persecuted him because he is homosexual.
After P tendered his resignation, the Employer paid him four months’ salary in lieu of notice and also paid cash for his unconsumed annual leave. This payment package was more generous than what P’s employment contract required. The Letter of Appointment (“LOA”) dated 2 October 2006 contained a termination clause (clause 4) stipulating that, after confirmation, termination by either party required two months’ notice or two months’ salary in lieu of notice, without assigning reasons.
P commenced legal proceedings on 6 December 2012, seeking damages for constructive dismissal. The Employer responded by applying to strike out P’s claim. The procedural history was relatively involved. The Employer first filed Summons No 3064 of 2013 on 18 June 2013 with supporting affidavit material to strike out P’s claim. P filed an affidavit in response on 15 July 2013.
In addition to the strike-out application, the Employer brought a further application (Summons No 3969 of 2013) on 31 July 2013 to expunge two paragraphs (paras 28 and 29) of P’s affidavit. The expungement application was connected to an earlier discovery order. On 10 May 2013, P had sought discovery of certain documents with redactions. On 24 June 2013, an Assistant Registrar allowed discovery of the redacted portions of two documents, but imposed a restriction: P could make reference to the documents, yet was not permitted to exhibit them in any affidavit filed thereafter from the date of the order.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The case presented two principal issues. First, the court had to decide whether P’s affidavit should have certain paragraphs expunged for breaching the terms of the earlier discovery order. The Employer argued that although P did not directly exhibit the documents, he effectively did so indirectly by citing passages from the redacted documents in his affidavit, thereby circumventing the restriction imposed by the Assistant Registrar.
Second, and more substantively, the court had to determine whether P’s claim for constructive dismissal could survive a strike-out application. The Employer’s position was that P had resigned voluntarily and that there was no persecution. However, for the purposes of the strike-out application, the Employer assumed (without conceding) that P was constructively dismissed. The legal question then became: even if constructive dismissal were assumed, what damages could P recover given the express contractual termination mechanism in clause 4 of the LOA?
Within the damages issue, a further sub-issue arose concerning whether P could recover damages beyond the contractual notice-based entitlement by invoking the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, as developed in Malik. P relied on Malik to argue that he was entitled to damages over and above the contractual termination payment because he suffered stigma and consequential losses due to the Employer’s alleged wrongdoing.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the procedural expungement issue, Woo Bih Li J approached the matter by reading the discovery order as a whole. The Assistant Registrar’s 24 June 2013 order allowed P to “make reference” to the documents, but also prohibited P from exhibiting the documents in any affidavit filed after the order. The court accepted the Employer’s submission that P’s approach—citing passages from the redacted documents in paras 28 and 29—was an attempt to circumvent the restriction. The court emphasised that the permission to refer to the documents had to be understood in context: it did not permit P to reproduce the actual contents of the redacted portions in his affidavit.
The court gave an illustrative example. P could refer to the fact that a document was sent, but could not cite the actual contents unless those parts were already known and were not the subject of the Employer’s objection. Since P’s paragraphs cited the substance of the redacted material, the court held that the Assistant Registrar was correct to expunge them. Accordingly, the appeal against the expungement order was dismissed.
Turning to the strike-out application, the court framed the analysis around the employment contract. Clause 4 of the LOA provided that, after confirmation, termination by either party required two months’ notice or two months’ salary in lieu of such notice, without assigning reasons. The Employer argued that even if P were constructively dismissed, the measure of damages for wrongful termination would be limited to the contractual notice period—subject to mitigation, though mitigation was not the focus of the striking out argument.
To support the general principle that damages for wrongful dismissal are ordinarily measured by the notice period specified in the contract, the court relied on Alexander Proudfoot Productivity Services Co S’pore Pte Ltd v Sim Hua Ngee Alvin and another appeal [1992] 3 SLR(R) 933. The Court of Appeal in Alexander Proudfoot had explained that where a contract expressly provides for termination upon a specified notice period, the damages ordinarily correspond to the wages for that notice period. The court also referred to Teh Guek Ngor Engelin nee Tan and others v Chia Ee Lin Evelyn and another [2005] 3 SLR(R) 22, which reiterated the same approach.
Importantly, the court noted that P had already received four months’ salary in lieu of notice, even though the contract required only two months. While the court did not treat this as a conclusive defence for all purposes, it reinforced the legal point that P could not use the constructive dismissal allegation as a gateway to claim damages beyond the contractual entitlement. The court reasoned that if every employee could claim more than the contract’s fixed termination payment by alleging a breach of trust and confidence, the contractual allocation of risk and quantum would be undermined.
P attempted to overcome this limitation by relying on Malik. In Malik, the House of Lords allowed a claim for additional losses where the employer’s conduct involved corruption and dishonesty, and where it was reasonably foreseeable that such conduct would cause the employee serious disadvantage in obtaining employment elsewhere. However, Woo Bih Li J stressed that Malik was decided in the context of a preliminary issue about whether the applicant’s evidence disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court in Malik had proceeded on assumptions to explain the law of implied terms in employment contracts, particularly the implied obligation not to conduct a dishonest or corrupt business, which was treated as part of the trust and confidence necessary for the employment relationship.
In the present case, the court observed that P would need to show a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. While P had pleaded such a breach in his statement of claim, Woo Bih Li J found it to be a bare allegation. The pleading did not disclose particulars relevant to establishing the breach. Moreover, P did not plead that the circumstances of his termination were known to others, nor that they put him at a disadvantage in seeking employment elsewhere. The “stigma” damages were therefore not properly particularised as a contractual breach giving rise to financial loss.
Accordingly, the court held that Malik did not assist P. Even if P’s termination were wrongful or constructive dismissal were assumed, the bare fact of termination could not justify damages beyond what the employment contract provided for lawful termination. The court’s reasoning reflects a consistent approach in Singapore employment contract disputes: where the contract specifies the notice-based quantum, damages for wrongful termination are generally confined to that bargain, unless a properly pleaded and evidenced contractual breach gives rise to additional foreseeable losses.
Finally, the court’s approach to the strike-out application was consistent with the procedural posture. At the interlocutory stage, the court examines whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action and whether the pleaded case, if taken at its highest, can legally support the relief sought. Here, the court concluded that P’s claim—particularly his attempt to expand damages using Malik—was legally insufficient and therefore could not proceed.
What Was the Outcome?
Woo Bih Li J dismissed both of P’s Registrar’s Appeals. The first appeal concerned the Assistant Registrar’s decision to expunge paras 28 and 29 of P’s affidavit. The High Court agreed that P had breached the terms of the discovery order by citing the contents of redacted documents in his affidavit, and therefore upheld the expungement.
The second appeal concerned the Assistant Registrar’s decision to strike out P’s claim for constructive dismissal damages. The High Court upheld the strike-out, holding that even assuming constructive dismissal, P was limited to the damages measure under clause 4 of the LOA for termination by notice or salary in lieu of notice, and that P’s reliance on Malik failed because his pleadings did not properly establish the implied term breach or particularise consequential “stigma” losses.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is useful for practitioners because it illustrates two recurring themes in employment litigation in Singapore: (1) the strict enforcement of procedural orders, including discovery and restrictions on how documents may be referenced or exhibited in affidavits; and (2) the disciplined approach to damages for wrongful termination where the employment contract contains an express notice-based termination regime.
Substantively, the case reinforces the principle that damages for wrongful dismissal are ordinarily measured by the contractual notice period, and that an employee cannot automatically convert a wrongful termination narrative into a broader damages claim simply by alleging breach of trust and confidence. To pursue additional damages beyond the contractual notice entitlement, the employee must plead and show a properly articulated contractual breach and a coherent causal and foreseeability basis for the additional losses. The court’s treatment of Malik underscores that Malik is not a general licence to claim stigma damages; it depends on the specific implied term breach and the evidential and pleading foundation for consequential losses.
For law students and litigators, the case also demonstrates how courts handle strike-out applications in employment contexts. The court’s reasoning shows that even where the employer does not contest the factual premise for the purposes of the application (here, constructive dismissal), the legal sufficiency of the claim—particularly the measure of damages and the adequacy of particulars—remains decisive.
Legislation Referenced
- Not specified in the provided extract.
Cases Cited
- Alexander Proudfoot Productivity Services Co S’pore Pte Ltd v Sim Hua Ngee Alvin and another appeal [1992] 3 SLR(R) 933
- Teh Guek Ngor Engelin nee Tan and others v Chia Ee Lin Evelyn and another [2005] 3 SLR(R) 22
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation) [1997] 3 WLR 95
- Hartley v Harman (1840) 11 Ad & E 798
- Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 577
Source Documents
This article analyses [2013] SGHC 279 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.