Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy v Singapore Airlines: Dismissal & Natural Justice
Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy sued Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA) in the High Court of Singapore, appealing a lower court's decision to strike out portions of his claim related to his dismissal. Arokiasamy argued his dismissal was a breach of natural justice because he was not given a hearing, as allegedly required by SIA's personnel procedures. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the trial court should determine whether SIA's personnel procedures applied to Arokiasamy's contract and whether he was entitled to a hearing. The court upheld the striking out of the claim for reinstatement, as that power resides with the Minister under the Employment Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding dismissal from Singapore Airlines. The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to a hearing before dismissal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Singapore Airlines Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed in Part | Partial | Lawrence Teh, Sean La'Brooy |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lawrence Teh | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Sean La'Brooy | Rodyk & Davidson |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff was employed by Singapore Airlines from 1973 until March 1997.
- In 1996, the plaintiff was investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
- The plaintiff was arrested on 18 February 1997 and charged in court.
- The plaintiff was remanded in Queenstown Remand Prison because he could not raise bail.
- The defendant sent the plaintiff a letter dated 5 March 1997 terminating his employment with effect from 21 February 1997 due to unauthorised absence.
- The plaintiff was acquitted of the charges in June 1997.
- The plaintiff sought reinstatement with the defendant but was unsuccessful.
5. Formal Citations
- Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd, DC Suit 4929/1997, [2002] SGHC 200
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff began employment with Singapore Airlines Limited. | |
| Plaintiff was investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. | |
| Plaintiff was arrested. | |
| Plaintiff did not report to work. | |
| Singapore Airlines sent a letter to the plaintiff terminating his employment. | |
| Plaintiff was acquitted of charges. | |
| Plaintiff sought reinstatement with Singapore Airlines. | |
| Plaintiff sent an appeal letter to the defendants. | |
| Plaintiff sent an appeal letter to the defendants. | |
| Plaintiff took out a suit against the defendants claiming damages for alleged wrongful dismissal. | |
| Plaintiff applied to court for leave to amend his statement of claim. | |
| Deputy Registrar granted leave to the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim. | |
| Plaintiff filed the amended statement of claim. | |
| Defendants required further and better particulars of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim. | |
| Plaintiff provided further and better particulars. | |
| Defendants applied to the court for determination of certain questions of law and for striking out prayers in the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim. | |
| Plaintiff applied to the court for the dismissal of the defendants’ summons for directions. | |
| Deputy Registrar ordered that prayers of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim be struck out. | |
| Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar. | |
| District Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s application. | |
| High Court heard the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court determined that the trial court should determine whether the defendant committed a breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unauthorised absence from work
- Termination with notice
- Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court determined that the trial court should determine whether the principles of natural justice apply to the plaintiff’s contract of employment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Right to be heard before dismissal
- Failure to comply with administrative regulations
- Reinstatement
- Outcome: The court upheld the striking out of the claim for reinstatement, as that power resides with the Minister under section 14 of the Employment Act.
- Category: Remedial
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the dismissal was null and void
- Reinstatement to his position
- Payment of loss of salary and benefits
- Damages for unfair dismissal
9. Cause of Actions
- Wrongful Dismissal
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Employment Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Aviation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ridge v Baldwin And Others | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] AC 40 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a person is entitled to be heard before being dismissed from an office, especially when the body employing the person is under some statutory or other restriction as to the grounds on which it can dismiss them. |
| Vasudevan Pillai & Anor v The City Council of Singapore | Privy Council | Yes | [1968] 2 MLJ 16 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee gives rise to no application of the principle of audi alteram partem on dismissal. |
| Lim Tow Peng & Anor v Singapore Bus Services Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1976] 1 MLJ 254 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to reinstate a dismissed employee resides only with the Minister under section 14 of the Employment Act. |
| Malloch v Aberdeen Corporation | House of Lords | Yes | [1971] 1 WLR 1578 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that the possibility of dismissal without reason makes it important for the employee to be able to state his case and have his dismissal declared void. |
| Stevenson v United Road Transport Union | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977] 2 All ER 941 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that where one party has a discretionary power to terminate the tenure of another, that power is conditional on the party being satisfied on a point which involves investigating some matter on which the other party ought to be heard. |
| Payna Chettiar v Maimoon bte Ismail & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 387 | Singapore | Cited to define the scope of Order 14 rule 12 of the Rules of Court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment Act (Cap 91, 1996 Ed) | Singapore |
| Industrial Relations Act | Singapore |
| Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 | N/A |
| Police Appeals Act 1927 | N/A |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Dismissal
- Termination
- Reinstatement
- Natural justice
- Audi alteram partem
- Personnel procedure manual
- Unauthorised absence
- Contract of service
15.2 Keywords
- Dismissal
- Singapore Airlines
- Employment
- Natural Justice
- Reinstatement
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law