District Judge Tan May Tee:
Introduction
The plaintiff is an Indian national who came to Singapore in 2012. He was employed as a “Portfolio Manager – Fixed Income” by the first defendant (“1st Defendant”) from 2 April 2012 until 23 January 2016. In accordance with the licensing requirements of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) applicable to the fund management activities of the 1st Defendant, the plaintiff was registered as a capital markets services representative.
The plaintiff held a significant role in the 1st Defendant’s organisation. As the sole manager of all fixed income products, he had a wide discretion and took charge over the investment strategies of the various funds under his control. The plaintiff did well in his career with the 1st Defendant and was rewarded with generous pay increments and bonuses.
On 22 December 2015, following an internal disciplinary inquiry, the plaintiff’s employment with the 1st Defendant was, however, terminated on grounds of misconduct. He was given one month’s notice with full payment of his salary and other entitlements up to the last day of his employment. Pursuant to MAS’s licensing requirements, the 1st Defendant filed the necessary report to notify them of the misconduct and cessation of the plaintiff’s employment.
From 1 March 2016, the plaintiff took up employment with his current employer, Reliance Asset Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“RAMS”), also as a portfolio manager of fixed income products. It is not disputed that RAMS is a competitor of the 1st Defendant. RAMS had communicated with the 1st Defendant to obtain an employer’s reference check on the plaintiff and was informed of the plaintiff’s dismissal on grounds of misconduct.
In this suit, the plaintiff claims that he had been wrongfully dismissed from his employment. His case is that he was a genuine whistleblower against the 1st Defendant’s chief executive officer, and as such, was entitled to specific legal protections pursuant to the 1st Defendant’s personnel policy which governed his employment contract. Instead of being accorded such protection, the plaintiff says that the senior members in the 1st Defendant’s management had acted in conspiracy with each other in breach of various provisions of the 1st Defendant’s personnel policy to retaliate against the plaintiff for his whistleblowing allegations and procure his dismissal on grounds of misconduct.
The plaintiff seeks a declaration against the 1st Defendant that he was wrongfully dismissed from his employment as well as damages for breach of his employment contract. In addition to his claims against the 1st Defendant, the plaintiff is also seeking specific reliefs in the form of damages and injunctive orders against the second to the fourth defendants, being the senior executives of the 1st Defendant at the material time, for defamation, conspiracy and malicious falsehood in connection with the various actions taken by them consequent to the termination of his employment.
Background facts
The parties
The 1st Defendant (also referred to herein as “UTI”) is a Singapore-incorporated company which carries out fund management activities and is regulated by the MAS as a capital markets services licence holder. Its parent company, UTI Asset Management Company Limited (“UTI AMC”), is based in Mumbai, India. The 1st Defendant manages the offshore interests as well as the global marketing function of UTI AMC. UTI AMC is a company incorporated in India pursuant to an Act of the Indian Parliament. UTI AMC is said to be one of India’s largest managers of Indian equities, fixed income and private equity with assets under management worth more than USD 50 billion as at October 2018.
Mr Praveen Jagwani, the second defendant (“2nd Defendant”), is the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the 1st Defendant as well as one of the seven directors on its board of directors. He oversees the general management of the 1st Defendant’s international business which includes its fund management activities, sales and marketing functions, operations and product management.
Ms Shobha Menon, the third defendant (“3rd Defendant”), was at the material time also a director of the 1st Defendant. She was appointed as the 1st Defendant’s Head of Legal and Compliance in 2008 and held that position until she resigned in July 2018 and moved to the United States of America where she is currently based.
Mr Muralidaran Narayann, the fourth defendant (“4th Defendant”), served as the 1st Defendant’s Head of Investments from May 2008 to January 2017. He was in charge of the fund management activities of the 1st Defendant and had oversight of its portfolio managers including the plaintiff.
Within the organisational hierarchy, the plaintiff' reported directly to the 4th Defendant as his immediate superior. In his role of Portfolio Manager, Fixed Income, the plaintiff' was also required to report to one Mr Amandeep Chopra, the Head of Fixed Income at UTI AMC, who was regarded as his functional head.
As the Portfolio Manager of all fixed income products of the 1st Defendant, the plaintiff was also a member of its Investment Committee. The fixed income products under the plaintiff’s management included the UTI Indian Fixed Income Fund (“UTI IFIF”) incorporated in Ireland which was regarded as UTI’s flagship fund, the UTI Phoenix Fund incorporated in the Cayman Islands and the UTI Wealth Creator Fund incorporated in Mauritius.
In so far as the events leading up to this suit are concerned, the plaintiff had also interacted with the 1st Defendant’s Head of Products, Mr Manish Khandelwal, as well as members of UTI’s sales team which comprised: Mr Prateek Sinha (handling Asia), Mr Gaurav Maleri (handling Europe), and Mr Sameer Bhatia (handling the Middle-East).
At the material time, the 1st Defendant’s board of directors had seven members – three were based in Singapore, namely the 2nd Defendant, the 3rd Defendant, and one Mr Tan Woon Hum of Shook Lin & Bok LLP; two representatives of UTI AMC based in Mumbai, India, namely Mr Leo Puri and Mr Imtaiyazur Rahman, being the then Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of UTI AMC respectively, one Mr Ian Kelson based in the United Kingdom and one Mr Henry Hagan based in the United States of America. Mr Ian Kelson was the nominee of T Rowe Price Global Investment Services Ltd, a substantial shareholder of UTI AMC. Mr Kelson was the director that the plaintiff had chosen to communicate with in relation to his “whistleblowing” against the 2nd Defendant.
As the CEO, the 2nd Defendant is the most senior employee of the 1st Defendant. He is also one of the three directors of UTI IFIF. It is not disputed that the 2nd Defendant had ultimate discretion on matters relating to the plaintiff’s employment with the 1st Defendant.
The 3rd Defendant reported to the 2nd Defendant as well as to the 1st Defendant’s board of directors while the 4th Defendant reported to the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant, the 3rd Defendant and the 4th Defendant were the three most senior members of the 1st Defendant’s management team and comprised the inquiry committee that had found the plaintiff guilty of misconduct on 22 December 2015.
The writ in these proceedings was issued against the four defendants on 17 July 2017. All four defendants were initially represented by Shook Lin & Bok LLP which had filed the defence and counterclaim collectively on their behalf in August 2017. In March 2019, the 3rd Defendant opted to engage a different set of solicitors, Gloria James-Civetta & Co, to represent her and obtained leave to amend her defence.
For ease of reference, the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants (who remain jointly represented by Shook Lin & Bok LLP) will be referred to as “the Joint Defendants” where applicable.
Timeline of significant events
2012 to June 2015
From the time the plaintiff commenced employment with the 1st Defendant in April 2012 up to May 2015, he was recognised as a high performer. He received favourable scores in his performance appraisals and was rewarded with salary increments and performance bonuses as outlined below: From his starting monthly salary of $5,400, his salary was revised to $6,000 in October 2012 and increased to $8,500 in March 2013. He was also rewarded with a performance-linked bonus of $30,600 in May 2013. In May 2014, his monthly salary was again increased to $8,883 and he was awarded a bonus of $43,860. His salary was further increased to $9,500 in July 2014. In May 2015, he received yet a further increase in his monthly salary to $10,545 and he was awarded a bonus of $45,600.
According to the 2nd Defendant, some of the salary increments were given because the plaintiff had asked for them and threatened to resign if his demands were not met. As it was critical to the 1st Defendant to maintain continuity in the management of its key products such as the UTI IFIF, its flagship fund, the 2nd Defendant acceded to the plaintiff’s demands and increased his salary accordingly.
In 2014 and 2015, several incidents concerning the plaintiff came to the attention of the 2nd Defendant: Sometime around 27 March 2014, the plaintiff was unhappy with his performance appraisal given by the 4th Defendant. The plaintiff felt that the grade that he was given was too low and he sent an email to the 4th Defendant, keeping the 2nd Defendant in copy. In this email, the plaintiff insinuated that the 4th Defendant was “senile” and knew “almost nothing about the fund”. Sometime around 6 February 2015, Mr Prateek Sinha from the sales team brought to the 2nd Defendant’s attention that the plaintiff had refused to conduct two training sessions for Citibank, one of the 1st Defendant’s clients. Although the plaintiff had been scheduled to conduct the training sessions, he suddenly informed Mr Sinha on the day itself that he could not do so. Sometime...
