Noor Mohamed v Apollo Enterprises: Termination with Notice vs. Redundancy under Employment & Retirement Age Acts
Noor Mohamed bin Mumtaz Shah appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the decision of the District Court in favor of Apollo Enterprises Ltd. The case concerned the termination of Noor Mohamed's employment and whether it was a disguised redundancy to avoid retrenchment benefits under the Collective Agreement, or a valid termination with notice under the Employment Act. The High Court allowed the appeal in relation to the redundancy payment claim, finding that the termination was mainly due to redundancy, but dismissed the appeal regarding claims for meals and telephone calls.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in relation to the main claim for redundancy payment, but dismissed the appeal in respect of the claim for reimbursement for meals and telephone calls.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding termination of employment. Court examines whether termination was due to redundancy or permissible under Employment Act and Retirement Age Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noor Mohamed bin Mumtaz Shah | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Apollo Enterprises Ltd (trading as Apollo Hotel Singapore) | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew J Hanam | Edmond Pereira & Partners |
| Kee Lay Lian | Rajah & Tann |
| Allen Choong | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a lift attendant on 13 September 1973.
- Plaintiff remained in the defendants' employment in various capacities for almost 25 years.
- Plaintiff's employment was terminated by a letter dated 31 August 1998.
- Defendants stated the termination was due to the plaintiff's bad working attitude and difficult behaviour.
- Plaintiff claimed the termination was due to redundancy and sought retrenchment benefits.
- Defendants decided in late 1997 to merge Apollo Hotel with Furama Hotel.
- After the plaintiff's termination, the defendants re-designated the Office Assistant's position to include driver duties.
5. Formal Citations
- Noor Mohamed bin Mumtaz Shah v Apollo Enterprises Ltd (trading as Apollo Hotel Singapore), DA 34/1999, [2000] SGHC 58
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff employed by the defendants as a lift attendant. | |
| Plaintiff's employment terminated via letter. | |
| Termination of plaintiff's employment effective. | |
| Defendants informed Jamilah Ahmad of her re-designation to include driver duties. | |
| Retirement Age (Prescribed Retirement Age) Regulations 1998 dated. | |
| Minimum retirement age prescribed to be 62 years. | |
| Decision Date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether termination was with notice or with cause
- Outcome: The court found that the termination pertained to termination with notice and not dismissal with cause.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether right of termination with notice removed by Retirement Age Act
- Outcome: The court held that the Retirement Age Act does not remove the right of termination with notice under s 10 of the Employment Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether termination was solely or mainly because of redundancy
- Outcome: The court found that the termination was wholly or mainly due to redundancy.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Retrenchment benefits
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of contract
- Wrongful dismissal
10. Practice Areas
- Termination
- Redundancy
- Employment Contract
11. Industries
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malton v Crystal of Scarborough Ltd | Queen`s Bench Division | Yes | [1971] ITR 106 | England | Cited for the principle that if an employee is dismissed in circumstances where a redundancy results, there is a presumption that the dismissal is on that ground, shifting the onus to the employer to prove otherwise. |
| Stride v Moore (Metal Spinners) Ltd | Queen`s Bench Division | Yes | [1967] ITR 117 | England | Cited for the principle that the onus is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was not solely or mainly due to redundancy. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment Act (Cap 91) | Singapore |
| Retirement Age Act (Cap 274A) | Singapore |
| Employment Act | Singapore |
| Employment Act | Singapore |
| Employment Act | Singapore |
| Retirement Age Act | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Termination with notice
- Dismissal with cause
- Redundancy
- Retrenchment benefits
- Collective Agreement
- Employment contract
15.2 Keywords
- Employment
- Termination
- Redundancy
- Retirement Age Act
- Collective Agreement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Employment Law | 95 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Termination of Employment
- Redundancy
- Retirement Age