R.J. Crocker Consultants Pte Ltd v Peter Fang MingXie

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chiah Kok Khun
• Judgment Date: 06 March 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGMC 9
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Court Suit No. 24020 of 2015
• Published date: 16 March 2017
• Year: 2017
• Hearing Date: 23 February 2017,24 February 2017,20 February 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Lim Chee San (M/s TanLim Partnership)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Ooi Oon Tat (M/s Judy Cheng & Co)
• Subject Matter: Employment Law - contract of service,breach
• Citation: [2017] SGMC 9

District Judge Chiah Kok Khun: Introduction

This case proceeded by way of simplified trial under Order 108 rule 5 of the Rules of Court.

The Plaintiff, R. J. Crocker Consultants Pte Ltd is in the business of civil engineering, architectural works and quantity surveying. Vincent Ng is the controlling shareholder and a director of the Plaintiff. The Defendant, Peter Fang Mingxie is a professional engineer and a friend of Ng.

By way of a letter of appointment dated 7 October 2014 (“letter of appointment”) from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff offered the position of managing director to the Defendant on express terms as stated in the letter, except for the starting date of the appointment which was to be stated on the letter of acceptance. The Defendant signed the letter of acceptance dated 7 October 2014 with the starting date of the appointment stated as 15 December 2014.¹

The Plaintiff’s case

The Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant then commenced employment with the Plaintiff on 15 December 2014. However, after the Defendant has taken up appointment with the Plaintiff on 15 December 2014, and before 31 December 2014, the Defendant requested Ng to allow him to return to work for his previous employer, Rankine & Hill (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Rankine”) for 2 months in order to satisfy the contractual period of notice of termination of employment which he had to give to Rankine. The Defendant was a director with Rankine. Rankine is a company in the Ong & Ong Group.

Ng turned down the Defendant’s request. The Defendant did not turn up for work at the Plaintiff’s office from 2 January 2015 onwards. It is not disputed that under the letter of appointment: the Defendant’s monthly salary was $18,000, and either party must give at least 3 months’ written notice for termination of employment agreement, or in lieu of notice to pay to the other party an amount equal to 3 months of the Defendant’s monthly salary, i.e. S$54,000.

The Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant on 5 January 2015 noting the Defendant’s absence from 2 January 2015. The Plaintiff also noted in the letter that the Defendant had been holding out that he was being employed by Rankine whilst he was employed by the Plaintiff. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s absence as his intention not to continue employment with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff demanded for 3 months’ pay as compensation for the Defendant’s action.²

The Defendant’s case

It is not entirely clear what the Defendant’s cause of defence is. The facts pleaded by him in answer to the claim appears to be based on two verbal agreements which he said were made between him and Ng. The first was on 2 December 2014 at Ng’s office. This would be before the commencement of employment with the Plaintiff on 15 December 2014. The Defendant says that Ng told him at this meeting that “because” of Ng’s wife, the Plaintiff could not employ him. The Defendant accepted the “situation” and sent an email to Ng on 3 December 2014 stating that he had decided to “postpone” joining the Plaintiff. He made reference to the discussion with Ng on 2 December 2014 in this email.³ The Defendant says that he became concerned when Ng did not respond to this email and he called Ng several times to confirm acknowledgment of the email. Ng sent an email dated 11 December acknowledging receipt of the email.⁴ However on 13 December 2014, Ng sent an email to the Defendant stating in no uncertain terms that Ng was to report for work on 15 December 2014 as agreed; and that his request for postponement was not acceded to. The Defendant says that he duly reported for work on 15 December 2014.

The Defendant also refers to yet another discussion he had with Ng, this time on 31 December 2014. The Defendant asserts that at this meeting Ng told him that he should serve the 2 months’ notice with Rankine before joining the Plaintiff. In other words, the Defendant’s case is that the Plaintiff agreed on 31 December 2014 that the Defendant should start serving the 2 months’ notice from 2 January 2014, before returning to continue employment with the Plaintiff.

On the basis of the above, the Defendant contends that he had not breached the terms of letter of appointment. Instead, the Defendant counterclaims that the Plaintiff has wrongfully terminated his services. He counterclaims for damages of 3 months’ pay in lieu of notice and the sum of $8,375.00 which is the net amount for salary from 15 to 31 December 2014.⁵

Analysis and findings

The starting point of the analysis of the Defendant’s case is the discussion of 2 December 2014 referred to by the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that Ng told him that “because” of Ng’s wife, the Plaintiff could not employ him. The Defendant then sent an email to Ng on 3 December 2014 stating that he had decided to “postpone” joining the Plaintiff. However, it is not disputed that Ng had responded by email on 13 Dec 2014 to the Defendant stating in no uncertain terms that Ng was to report for work on 15 December 2014 as agreed; and that his request for postponement was not acceded to. This put paid to the Defendant’s case in regard to any verbal agreement that might have been made. It is also noted that the Defendant had stated in his email to Ng that he had decided to postpone joining the Plaintiff. No reference was made of Ng not been able to employ him, nor was that any allusion to Ng’s wife. In any event, the fact remained that the Defendant duly reported for work on 15 December 2014. Further, the Defendant’s allusion to Ng’s wife objecting to the Plaintiff employing is contradicted by contemporaneous communication between Ng’s wife and the Defendant. The Defendant himself has made reference to the communication. In an SMS on 15 December 2014, the Defendant’s first day of work, Ng’s wife had warmly welcomed the Defendant joining the Plaintiff.⁶ It is also telling that in the SMS disclosed by the Defendant, there was not mention of the verbal agreement made on 2 December 2014 between Ng and the Defendant; nor the discussion on 31 December 2014, to which I turn to next.

In regard the discussion on 31 December 2014, the Defendant asserts that at this meeting Ng told him that he should serve the 2 months’ notice with Rankine before joining the Plaintiff. I find the Defendant’s assertion inconsistent with the evidence. Ng had made it clear by his email of 13 Dec 2014 that he expected the Defendant to commence work with the Plaintiff on 15 December 2014 as agreed. The Defendant duly started work on 15 December 2014. There was no reason for Ng to suddenly agree on 31 December 2014, just 2 weeks later, for the Defendant to return to Rankine to serve his 2 months’ notice before continuing employment with the Plaintiff. It would be most peculiar...