Minah L Mande v John Edward Schneider and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 28 February 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 60
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 21 February 2013
• Year: 1998
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Yew Cheng (Edmond Pereira & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Suhaimi Lazim & Gavin Ooi (Shook Lin & Bok)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 60

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The only issue in this case is whether there is a valid and binding compromise agreement entered into between the appellant (the plaintiff) and both respondents (the defendants) arising out of the present suit (MC Suit No 18075 of 1995), such that the plaintiff was precluded from proceeding with the action against the first defendant for false imprisonment. The learned magistrate found that there was indeed a compromise of the plaintiff's cause of action in this suit with both the defendants. He dismissed the plaintiff's claim and granted a declaration that the compromise was valid and binding on the parties. I dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and she has now appealed against my decision (Civil Appeal No 242 of 1997).

The Facts

2. The plaintiff sued the first defendant, for damages for false imprisonment. The second defendant was subsequently added as a co-defendant. Both defendants counterclaimed against the plaintiff, claiming that her cause of action against both of them were in fact compromised and could not be impeached upon. At the trial below, the parties agreed that the magistrate was to try the preliminary issue in the case, viz. whether there was in fact a settlement of the claims with both defendants by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff was an employee of the second defendant, holding the position of Customer Service Supervisor, until 2 September 1994. She was with the second defendant for over 20 years. The second defendant was a subsidiary of Kemet Electronics Asia Ltd, a company incorporated in Hong Kong, which was in turn wholly owned by Kemet Electronics Corporation in the United States. Kemet Electronics Corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing capacitors used in electronic equipment. These capacitors would be marketed and distributed by the second defendant in South-East Asia.

4. The first defendant was the plaintiff's immediate superior. He was appointed as the area manager of the second defendant in Singapore and was in charge of the South-East Asia operations. He was formerly with Kemet Electronics Corporation's headquarters in the United States. He arrived in Singapore at the end of March 1994 to assume his position on 1 April 1994.

5. The relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant was at first cordial but later deteriorated very rapidly; they were suspicious of each other. The first defendant felt that the plaintiff was incompetent and unable to fulfill the usual tasks of a supervisor. He was unhappy with the manner in which she handled her subordinates, and he perceived there was a lack of motivation in her sales team. The plaintiff on the other hand, felt that the first defendant was out to find fault with her as the sales performance of the second defendant in 1993 was below the target set by the headquarters in United States. She also felt that her customer service representatives (her subordinates) had surreptitiously made complaints about her to the first defendant. Many unpleasant incidents took place between the two of them.

6. Matters came to a head in July 1994. On 8 July 1994, the first defendant issued a written warning to the plaintiff, identifying the areas of concern about her conduct, and issued a written Performance Improvement Plan for her to work on. She was to be reassigned to handle all secretarial and administrative duties for the office and to maintain Malaysian accounts. The plaintiff denied all the allegations in the written warning, and gave a written reply dated 29 July 1994.

7. On 11 August 1994, the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant had wrongfully imprisoned her in his room in the office for about five hours. During that period, it was alleged that the first defendant harassed her and insulted her verbally, in order to intimidate her to admit to the truth of contents in the written warning. The false imprisonment was alleged to have taken place from 10.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. All these allegations were categorically denied by the first defendant. He claimed that they were discussing the Work Improvement Plan and that she was free to leave the room at all times during the meeting.

8. A second incident of false imprisonment took place on 24 August 1994, where the first defendant allegedly imprisoned her in his room in the office and threatened her should she not admit the contents of the warning letter. When the plaintiff was released, she immediately made a police report.

9. On 25 August 1996, the first defendant learnt of the plaintiff's police report when the police called him to investigate the incident. The plaintiff was asked to leave on the same day until further notice. She was dismissed on 30 August 1994, with one month's pay in lieu of notice, pro-rated annual wage supplement, and compensation for annual leave accrued but not taken, amounting to $5,770.91.

10. I now deal with the crux of the case as to whether the solicitors acting for the parties have entered into a binding compromise on their clients' behalf. The plaintiff engaged Messrs. Palakrishnan & Partners (P&P) to act for her. On 29 August 1994, P&P wrote to the first defendant putting on record that he had falsely imprisoned the plaintiff on the two occasions described above. The reaction from the defendants was swift. By a letter dated 2 September 1994, the second defendant informed the plaintiff that they were entitled to dismiss her without any notice and demanded the return of $5,770.91. On the same day, Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok (SLB) informed P&P that they were acting for both defendants, and categorically denied the allegations raised by P&P in their letter of 29 August 1994.

11. On 11 October 1994, P&P wrote to SLB, denying that she was lawfully dismissed, and stated that the plaintiff's acceptance of salary in lieu of proper notice was strictly without prejudice to any further recourse she had against the two defendants. It was clear that P&P had instructions to negotiate for a settlement. On 14 November 1994, P&P wrote to SLB, inquired whether the second defendant was prepared to compensate the plaintiff with 4 months' salary, in lieu of notice. This letter was without prejudice. The letter did not mention the first defendant at all or the possible cause of action of false imprisonment against him.

12. On 17 November 1994, SLB offered, on a without prejudice basis, a further one month's salary of $2,650.00. The last paragraph of the letter is important and I set it out in full:

The above payment will be made upon confirmation by the plaintiff that she would have no further claim whatsoever against our clients whether monetary or arising from matters which allegedly took place during your client's [the plaintiff's] employment with our clients.

13. By a letter dated 25 November 1994, SLB offered to pay the plaintiff on a without prejudice basis a further three months' salary on the same condition as set out in the letter of 17 November 1994, as set out above.

14. On 6 December 1994, P&P replied. The material paragraph reads:

However, in the interest of not having these matters aired through long protracted litigation, we have advised our client and now propose that your clients pay our client a further 11 months' salary in full and final settlement of all claims against them and Mr. Schneider.

15. SLB replied on 13 December 1994, flatly rejecting the offer of payment but was willing to offer the payment of a further three month's salary 'in full and final settlement of any claim that your client may have against our clients'.

16. There was no correspondence for about 5 months. On 6 June 1995, P&P sent a letter to SLB. The material parts of the letter said:

We refer to your letter of 13 December 1994.

We have been instructed that your client is agreeable to settle the matter with M/s Kemet Electronics Pte Ltd on the basis of 4 months' salary as...