Former CFO loses suit against company for 2 years’ performance bonus worth S$200,000

He attached a mind map on valuation and highlighted a portion titled “Valuation Excel Workbook”.

Mr Ngai argued that he had submitted an investment model in accordance with the bonus criteria around May 2023.

However, the company said he did not deliver any financial valuation model whether in 2023 or 2024. Therefore, there was neither obligation nor basis for the firm to pay Mr Ngai the bonus for both years.

Mr Ngai received a letter of termination in November 2024. He sued the company for S$200,000 in bonuses, as well as S$40,000 in damages, although the basis for this is unclear.

Mr Alvin Cheng gave evidence that he had expected a Microsoft Excel workbook comprising seven worksheets corresponding to the highlighted portion of the mind map.

District Judge Jonathan Ng Pang Ern found that the seven worksheets were the criteria for the bonus, which Mr Ngai did not meet.

MR NGAI’S EXPLANATIONS

The judge said Mr Ngai’s explanation of how he satisfied the criteria was “less an explanation than an attempt at technical exposition”.

He said Mg Ngai’s evidence was “long on technical jargon but short on any meaningful explanation of how any of this satisfied the criteria” for the bonus.

“It is not good enough for the claimant to just throw up one unexplained technical term after another and expect the court to somehow understand and make sense of it all,” said Judge Ng.

“Ultimately, and unfortunately, the claimant’s evidence as to how he satisfied the (bonus) criteria is both confused and confusing.”

Judge Ng pointed to how Mr Ngai had stated that the book handed to him was a university-level textbook meant for “non-financial personnel”. There was therefore no reason for a finance professional like himself to “take it too seriously”.

In his answers at trial, Mr Ngai said the book was a “university version” handbook, while his 30 years of working experience dealing with financial valuation models meant he was “sophisticated” and had the expertise.

“So, I look at this, it is the very basic, a simplified version of a financial modelling,” he said. “In my experience, I developed and implement financial modelling many years in my past employments. So, I can … I’ve actually … I delivered financial modelling more than the seven spreadsheet covered in this handbook.”

The judge said Mr Ngai had reinterpreted the criteria for the bonus because he thought he knew better.

When asked in court if his case was that he was entitled to his annual performance bonus as he was an “exceptional” CFO, Mr Ngai agreed.

Judge Ng said it was not open to him to unilaterally interpret the bonus criteria. As Mr Alvin Cheng testified, the criteria was “extremely specific”.

Mr Ngai alleged that Mr Albert Cheng, the managing director and father of Mr Alvin Cheng, had told him that the bonus for 2023 would be deferred but “assured to be paid”, and that the bonuses for both years would be paid to him.

Mr Albert Cheng denied this. The judge found that Mr Albert Cheng’s evidence was more convincing, and that Mr Ngai had not proven that Mr Albert Cheng had made the alleged representations.

In closing, the judge said that had Mr Ngai simply delivered the seven worksheets, he might have found himself in different circumstances today.

“In this sense, he was the author of his own predicament,” said Judge Ng. He ordered both sides to file submissions on costs.