Company sues manager for leaving without serving full 6-month notice, wins S$36,000

Mr Low, who was represented by Ms Kimberly Yeo from Tito Isaac & Co, raised several defences including that he reached an agreement with the company to abridge the notice period to two months.

He said he had a call with a director of the company on Apr 1, 2025 and May 23, 2025. He also referred to an email and a WhatsApp text conversation with the director in April 2025, as well as a letter sent by the company to a third party that month.

However, District Judge Evans Ng said his reading of the correspondence was that it did not show the company agreeing to reduce the notice period or waive its entitlement to salary in lieu of the unserved portion.

As for the two phone calls, Mr Low’s own evidence was that the director was indignant and insisted he make payment, said the judge.

“The evidence therefore does not prove the alleged abridgement agreement,” said Judge Ng, adding that the company also did not make a clear and unequivocal representation that it would not enforce its rights.

Mr Low then argued that the six-month notice period was invalid because it was “unreasonably long”.

Judge Ng said reasonableness is relevant, where a contractual provision operates as a restraint of trade.

However, he said the clause here imposes no restriction on Mr Low’s activities after his employment ended. Instead, it provided a reciprocal termination mechanism under which either party may shorten the notice period by paying salary in lieu.

He found no basis for the court to review the clause on grounds of reasonableness.

Mr Low then contended that he had completed a satisfactory handover before his last working day, therefore the company suffered no loss and is precluded from obtaining a remedy.

Judge Ng said this argument assumes that the claim is for damages, which ordinarily requires proof of loss and subject to the principle of mitigation.

However, the claim here arises directly from a primary obligation in the contract of service. The company was seeking payment of a contractually stipulated sum rather than compensation for the failure to pay it.

Judge Ng said in any event, if Mr Low is regarded as having broken his contract by leaving without serving the full notice period, Section 16 of the Employment Act makes him liable to make compensation that is equal to the amount payable under another section of the Act for the unserved notice period. This sum is also S$36,000.

Having rejected all of Mr Low’s defences, Judge Ng ordered him to pay the company S$36,000 with interest at 5.33 per cent per annum from the date the originating claim was filed, until the date of the judgment.

Costs will be decided at a later date.