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
- Judge: 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
- Parties: Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard — Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd
- Procedural Posture: Appeals from Assistant Registrar’s decision to expunge paragraphs of an affidavit and to strike out the plaintiff’s claim
- Decision Date: 26 December 2013
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure – striking out; Contract – contractual terms – implied terms; Employment Law – contract of service – breach
- Counsel Name(s): Plaintiff in person; M K Eusuff Ali and Lucinda Lim (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the defendant
- Statutes Referenced: (Not specified in the provided extract)
- Cases Cited: [2013] SGHC 279 (as provided); 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; Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 577
- Judgment Length: 4 pages, 2,172 words
Summary
Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd concerned an employee’s attempt to sue for “constructive dismissal” after he tendered his resignation. The plaintiff alleged that the employer persecuted him because he is homosexual. The High Court (Woo Bih Li J) dismissed the employee’s appeals against (i) an order expunging two paragraphs from his affidavit and (ii) the striking out of his claim.
The court held that the expunged affidavit paragraphs improperly circumvented a prior discovery order that allowed reference to certain documents but prohibited exhibiting their contents. Substantively, even assuming (for the purpose of the striking out application) that the resignation amounted to constructive dismissal, the court found that the measure of damages was governed by the contractual notice-and-salary-in-lieu provision in the plaintiff’s letter of appointment. The plaintiff’s attempt to claim additional “stigma” damages beyond the contractual entitlement failed because he did not plead and particularise a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in a manner that disclosed a reasonable cause of action.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard (“P”), was employed by Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“the Employer”), a department store. P tendered his resignation on 24 August 2012. The Employer processed the resignation and paid P four months’ salary in lieu of notice, together with cash for his unconsumed annual leave.
Crucially, P’s contract of employment—contained in a Letter of Appointment dated 2 October 2006 (“LOA”)—stipulated a different notice regime. Clause 4 provided that after confirmation, termination by either party required two months’ written notice or two months’ salary in lieu of such notice, “without assigning any reasons whatsoever.” Thus, the contractual entitlement for lawful termination by notice was two months’ salary, not four.
Despite having tendered his resignation, P claimed that the resignation was not voluntary but amounted to constructive dismissal. He alleged that the Employer persecuted him because he is homosexual. On that basis, he filed an action on 6 December 2012 seeking damages for constructive dismissal.
Procedurally, the Employer applied to strike out P’s claim. In parallel, the Employer also sought to expunge certain paragraphs from P’s affidavit. The Assistant Registrar (“AR”) granted the expunging application and struck out P’s claim. P then appealed to the High Court. The High Court heard both Registrar’s Appeals together and dismissed them, thereby upholding both the expunging order and the striking out of the substantive claim.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first issue was procedural: whether the AR was correct to expunge paragraphs 28 and 29 of P’s affidavit. The expunging application turned on the effect of an earlier discovery order made on 24 June 2013. That order permitted P to “make reference” to two documents whose redacted portions were to be disclosed to P’s solicitors, but it also prohibited P from “exhibit[ing] the said documents” in any affidavit filed thereafter.
The second, more substantive issue was whether P’s claim should be struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Even if the court assumed, for the sake of the striking out application, that P had been constructively dismissed, the question was whether P could recover damages beyond the contractual measure of two months’ salary (or whether his claim was effectively barred by the LOA’s termination clause).
Related to this was the legal question of whether P could rely on the doctrine of implied terms in employment contracts—particularly the implied term of mutual trust and confidence—to claim additional damages (including “stigma” damages) beyond what the contract provided for lawful termination. The court had to assess whether P’s pleading and evidence disclosed the necessary breach and foreseeability to bring his case within the principle discussed in Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation) and subsequent local authority.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the expunging application, the court examined the earlier discovery order and the way P used the disclosed documents in his affidavit. The AR’s 24 June 2013 order had allowed P to make reference to the documents, but it also made clear that P was not to exhibit the documents in any affidavit filed from that date. The Employer argued that although P did not directly exhibit the documents, he effectively did so indirectly by citing passages from them.
Woo Bih Li J agreed with the Employer. The court reasoned that the “reference” permission had to be read in context with the prohibition on exhibiting the documents. In other words, P could refer to the fact that the documents existed or were sent, but he could not cite their actual contents in a way that circumvented the AR’s restriction. The court therefore dismissed P’s appeal against the expunging order, reinforcing that discovery and affidavit-use orders must be complied with in substance, not merely in form.
Turning to the striking out of the claim, the court approached the matter by focusing on the contractual terms governing termination. The LOA dated 2 October 2006 contained clause 4, which set the notice period and salary in lieu. The Employer’s position was that even if P’s resignation was treated as constructive dismissal, the damages would be limited to the amount P would have received had the Employer lawfully terminated the employment by giving the contractual notice (two months’ salary). The court accepted that this was the relevant starting point for damages.
In support, the Employer 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 articulated the general measure of damages for wrongful dismissal where the contract provides for termination upon notice: the employee is ordinarily entitled to wages for the notice period, subject to mitigation. The High 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 that contractual notice provisions generally determine the quantum of damages for wrongful termination.
Importantly, the court noted that P’s allegation that the termination was because he is homosexual was, in the context of the striking out application, irrelevant to the quantum if the damages were contractually capped by the notice clause. The court was prepared to assume constructive dismissal for the purpose of the strike-out, but it still had to determine whether P could legally claim more than the contractual entitlement.
P attempted to rely on Malik to argue for damages beyond the contractual termination entitlement. In Malik, the House of Lords allowed a claim for losses arising from the employer’s implied obligation not to conduct a dishonest or corrupt business, which could undermine trust and confidence and cause foreseeable financial loss. However, Woo Bih Li J emphasised that Malik was a preliminary issue case about whether the evidence disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and that it required the claimant to show a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
Applying that framework, the court found that P’s reliance on Malik was not helpful. The court observed that P had pleaded a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, but the pleading was described as a bare allegation without particulars relevant to establishing the breach. Further, P did not plead that the circumstances leading to his termination were known to others or that they put him at a disadvantage in seeking employment elsewhere. His “stigma” damages were not particularised as financial loss flowing from a breach of contract in the way Malik required.
Most significantly, the court rejected the proposition that the mere fact of termination could justify damages beyond what the contract provided for lawful termination. Otherwise, any employee could claim more than the contractual notice entitlement by simply alleging a breach of trust and confidence. The court therefore concluded that P had not demonstrated a legally coherent basis to recover additional damages beyond the LOA’s termination clause.
Although the extract provided truncates the final portion of the judgment, the reasoning up to that point makes clear that the court treated the contractual notice-and-salary-in-lieu provision as determinative for damages in the absence of properly pleaded and particularised implied-term breach and causation/foreseeability. The court also noted that P had already received more than the contractual entitlement (four months’ salary in lieu of notice), which further undermined any claim for additional contractual damages.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed both Registrar’s Appeals. It upheld the AR’s order expunging paragraphs 28 and 29 of P’s affidavit, finding that P had improperly cited the contents of documents in a manner that circumvented the earlier discovery order.
It also upheld the AR’s decision to strike out P’s claim. Substantively, the court held that even assuming constructive dismissal, P’s damages were governed by the LOA’s termination clause, and his attempt to claim additional “stigma” damages under Malik failed because his pleading did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence with adequate particulars and causal connection to foreseeable financial loss.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is a useful authority on two recurring themes in employment litigation in Singapore: (i) the strict enforcement of procedural orders governing discovery and affidavit content, and (ii) the limits of damages where employment contracts contain clear termination-by-notice provisions.
For practitioners, the expunging aspect underscores that courts will look beyond technical compliance. Even if a party does not “exhibit” documents in the literal sense, citing their contents in an affidavit may still breach the substance of a discovery order. This is particularly relevant when discovery orders restrict how disclosed material may be used in subsequent affidavits.
On the substantive employment law point, the case reinforces that contractual notice clauses generally set the baseline measure of damages for wrongful termination, including constructive dismissal scenarios. While implied terms such as mutual trust and confidence can, in appropriate cases, support claims for losses beyond the notice period, Malik does not create a general licence to claim stigma or consequential damages without proper pleading. The court’s insistence on particulars—such as whether the circumstances were known to others, whether the claimant was disadvantaged in obtaining employment, and how the losses were foreseeable as a serious possibility—serves as a practical checklist for drafting pleadings and affidavits.
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
- 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.