Re Application by Yee Yut Ee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 12 June 1978
• Neutral Citation: [1978] SGHC 32
• Date: 12 June 1978
• Subject Matter: Whether director to be held personally liable for retrenchment benefits,Administrative Law,Whether tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction,Employment Law,Industrial dispute,s 46 Industrial Relations Act (1970 ed),Judicial review,Ouster of review jurisdiction,Industrial relations act,Industrial Relations Act,Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 30 of 1978
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Chao Hick Tin (Deputy Senior State Counsel)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Kian Fong (Ng Kian Fong & Co)

(delivering oral judgement): In this case Mr Ng Kian Fong moves on behalf of Mdm Yee Yut Ee for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash a decision dated 9 January 1978 made by the Industrial Arbitration Court on the ground that there is a manifest error of law on the face of the record.

Mr Chao Hick Tin, Deputy Senior State Counsel, who appears for the Attorney General, concedes that such an error appears and does not oppose an order of certiorari . Before, however, making such an order, the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction to do so.

The facts which are not in dispute are these. The applicant Mdm Yee Yut Ee is the secretary and former director of Trans-Market Research Pte Ltd, a company incorporated in Singapore and having its registered office at Room 808, OG Building, Upper Cross Street, Singapore. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Inmarco Inc of 7655, Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

The company, having operated at a loss since 1972 decided in October 1975 to retrench its staff in Singapore. By letter dated 17 October 1975 the company terminated the services of three of its employees, namely Abdul Basir Sumaidi, Chow Moh Lin and Nancy Chua Poh Tee. As a result of this retrenchment there arose a dispute on the question of retrenchment benefits claimed by the aforesaid employees and this dispute was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court by joint application of the company and the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union (hereafter called the Union) representing the retrenched employees.

The dispute came up for hearing before the Industrial Arbitration Court on 18 June 1976. The company was not represented at the hearing although duly served. The managing director of the company, one Miss Loretta Lee was present in Singapore on that day but she did not appear at the hearing. The Industrial Arbitration Court after hearing the case presented by the Union handed down its award awarding retrenchment benefits to the aforesaid three employees which were eventually computed by the acting registrar of the Industrial Arbitration Court to amount to a total sum of $10,180.63.

On the day the Industrial Arbitration Court made its award, i.e. on 18 June 1976 the applicant was not a director of the company. After the award was made, the managing director of the company disappeared from Singapore. As there was no other resident director in Singapore, the applicant was appointed a director in July 1976. The applicant claims that her appointment as a director was to comply with s 122(1) of the Companies Act which requires that at least one director should be ordinarily resident in Singapore.

In spite of repeated reminders, the company failed to comply with the award made by the Industrial Arbitration Court. Finally on 19 December 1977 the company received a summons to appear before the Industrial Arbitration Court to answer a charge that it did:

(i) fail to comply with the order of the Industrial Arbitration Court made on 18 June 1976 to pay retrenchment benefits to three former employees amounting to $10,180.63,

(ii) fail on 19 July 1977 to appear and show cause pursuant to s 55 of the Industrial Relations Act why the company should not be ordered to comply with the order made on 18 June 1976; and

(iii) fail to make payments pursuant to the order to comply made under s 55 of the Industrial Relations Act on 19 July 1977 despite proper notice of the order having been served on the company.

At the hearing of this summons on 9 January 1978 the applicant appeared and was represented by counsel. The Union was also represented by counsel. After hearing submissions by both counsel, the Industrial Arbitration Court, constituted by the president alone made an order to the effect that as secretary and director of the company, the applicant was to be personally liable for the payment of the retrenchment benefits amounting to $10,180.63. The president made this order in spite of the fact that it was clearly pointed out to him by counsel for the applicant that under company law neither a secretary nor a director is personally liable for the debts of a company and that this principle of law has not in any way been modified by the Industrial Relations Act (Cap 124, 1970 Ed).

On 2 February 1978 the applicant resigned from the office of director of the company. She now applies to this court for an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash the order made by the Industrial Arbitration Court on 9 January 1978 ordering or holding the applicant to be personally liable for the payment of the sum of $10,180.63 being retrenchment benefits awarded to three former employees of the company under an award made on 18 June 1976.

It is well established that the ambit of certiorari can be said to cover every case in which a body of persons, of a public as opposed to a purely private or domestic character, has to determine matters affecting subjects provided always that it has a duty to act judicially.

The remedy may be obtained on the ground of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal below, or of a breach of the rules of natural...