Aldabe Fermin v Standard Chartered Bank: Wrongful Dismissal & Disciplinary Hearing

Mr. Fermin Aldabe, an Italian, sued Standard Chartered Bank in the High Court of Singapore, alleging wrongful dismissal. Mr. Aldabe claimed he was summarily dismissed on his first day of work. The key legal issue was whether the bank could summarily dismiss him for indicating an intention to resign with one month's notice. The court, presided over by Steven Chong JC, found that Mr. Aldabe was wrongfully dismissed and awarded him damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Italian Mr. Aldabe Fermin sues Standard Chartered Bank for wrongful dismissal. The court found in favor of Mr. Aldabe Fermin.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Aldabe FerminPlaintiffIndividualClaim Allowed in PartPartialFermin Aldabe
Standard Chartered BankDefendantCorporationClaim Partially DismissedLostHerman Jeremiah, Chu Hua Yi, Wong Wai Han

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven ChongJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Fermin AldabeIndependent Practitioner
Herman JeremiahRodyk & Davidson LLP
Chu Hua YiRodyk & Davidson LLP
Wong Wai HanRodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Aldabe was headhunted for a senior position at Standard Chartered Bank.
  2. The Letter of Offer stated the commencement date as 17 November 2008.
  3. The bank later informed Mr. Aldabe that his start date would be 1 December 2008.
  4. Mr. Aldabe expressed concern about payment delays and expenses.
  5. Mr. Aldabe stated he would resign with one month's notice if his demands were not met.
  6. The bank withdrew the Letter of Offer after Mr. Aldabe indicated his intention to resign.
  7. Mr. Aldabe commenced an action against the bank for breach of contract.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Aldabe Fermin v Standard Chartered Bank, Suit No 174 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 119

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Fermin Aldabe was head hunted by Pathway Resourcing Ltd to fill a senior position as Head of Complex Product Risk Management, Foreign Exchange & Commodities.
Standard Chartered Bank made an initial offer to Mr. Fermin Aldabe.
Standard Chartered Bank revised its offer to Mr. Fermin Aldabe.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe accepted Standard Chartered Bank's revised offer.
Standard Chartered Bank sent a scanned copy of the Letter of Offer to Mr. Fermin Aldabe by email.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe signed the scanned copy of the Letter of Offer and returned it to Standard Chartered Bank by email.
Standard Chartered Bank sent an email to Mr. Fermin Aldabe informing him that his start date would be 1 December 2008.
Standard Chartered Bank couriered the hard copy of the Letter of Offer to Mr. Fermin Aldabe.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe arrived in Singapore.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe sought Standard Chartered Bank's confirmation that he would be paid by the end of December.
Ms. Sandra Box from Standard Chartered Bank assured Mr. Fermin Aldabe by email that she would make sure that he would be paid at the end of December.
Ms. Phyllis Ang from Standard Chartered Bank informed Mr. Fermin Aldabe by email that it could only endeavour to make payment to him by the end of December if his bank account documentation was handed in on time.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe wrote an email to Mr. Taylor to inform him that he would not attend the induction session unless Standard Chartered Bank could guarantee in writing that all necessary paperwork is in place and that payment will take place at the end of December.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe arrived at Standard Chartered Bank's Human Resources department.
Standard Chartered Bank withdrew its Letter of Offer.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe commenced an action against Standard Chartered Bank in the District Court for breach of contract.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe informed Standard Chartered Bank that he would take further action against the bank unless he was paid a sum of USD 250,000.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe amended his Statement of Claim to increase his claim to $540,800.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe successfully applied to transfer his action to the High Court.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe commenced a claim for unfair dismissal in the English Employment Tribunal.
Mr. Fermin Aldabe amended his Statement of Claim again.
The High Court issued its decision.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Wrongful Dismissal
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed because the defendant's reasons for summary dismissal were not justified.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of employment contract
      • Failure to provide adequate notice
      • Summary dismissal without cause
    • Related Cases:
      • [1979-1980] SLR(R) 670
      • [1999] 1 SLR(R) 739
      • UKEAT/0186/07/MAA
      • [2007] NSWDC 166
  2. Minimum Legal Obligation Rule
    • Outcome: The court applied the minimum legal obligation rule to limit the damages payable to the plaintiff to one month's salary.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Limitation of damages
      • Employer's right to terminate employment
      • Assessment of damages
    • Related Cases:
      • [1971] 1 QB 164
      • [1981] 1 Ch. 448
      • [1992] 3 SLR(R) 933
  3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claims for fraudulent misrepresentation failed because there was no evidence that the alleged representations were made with knowledge that they were false.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1941] 2 All ER 205
      • [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
      • [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501
  4. Contractual Right to Disciplinary Hearing
    • Outcome: The court determined that the damages payable for the wrongful dismissal are to be limited to the period that the defendant could and would have lawfully terminated the employment, ie one month’s notice pursuant to clause 10.3 of the Letter of Offer.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Incorporation of disciplinary procedures
      • Inconsistency between express and incorporated terms
      • Effect of non-binding guidelines
    • Related Cases:
      • [2004] 2 SLR(R) 233
      • (1986) I.C.R.891

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Compensation for Economic Loss

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Employment Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
McCutcheon v David MacBrayne LtdHouse of LordsYes[1964] 1 WLR 125United KingdomCited for the objective test in determining agreement: the court decides what each party was reasonably entitled to conclude from the attitude of the other.
Taylor v Oakes, Roncoroni & CoKing's Bench DivisionYes(1922) 127 LT 267United KingdomCited for the principle that a party furnishing a wrong reason for terminating a contract does not lose other valid justifications.
Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati (No.1)Queen's Bench DivisionYes[1957] 2 QB 401United KingdomCited for the principle that a rescission or repudiation can be supported by existing facts providing a good reason, even if a wrong or no reason was initially given.
Amixco Asia (Pte) Ltd v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia BhdHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 65SingaporeCited for affirming the principle that a party can rely on other justifications for terminating a contract, even if not initially stated, subject to exceptions like estoppel.
Cyril Leonard & Co. v Simo Securities Trust Ltd. and OthersCourt of AppealYes[1972] 1 W.L.R. 80United KingdomCited for the principle that an employer can rely on any act of misconduct warranting dismissal, even if not relied upon at the time of dismissal.
Heisler v Anglo-Dal LtdCourt of AppealYes[1954] 1 WLR 1273United KingdomCited for the exception to the common law rule: if the point not taken could have been put right, the principle will not apply.
Panchaud Frères SA v Etablissements General Grain CoCourt of AppealYes[1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53United KingdomCited for the exception to the common law rule: a party may by its conduct preclude itself from setting up another ground at a later date.
Cerealmangimi SpA v Toepfer (Alfred C), The EurometalQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1981] 3 All ER 533United KingdomCited for the exception to the common law rule: a party may by its conduct preclude itself from setting up another ground at a later date.
Davis (W) & Sons v AtkinsHouse of LordsYes[1977] AC 931United KingdomCited for the exception to the common law rule: the rule does not apply where a statute precludes a party from raising other grounds at a later time.
Port of Singapore Authority v Wallace John BrysonCourt of AppealYes[1979-1980] SLR(R) 670SingaporeCited for the principle that a claim of wrongful dismissal is treated as any other claim for breach of contract.
Cowie Edward Bruce v Berger International Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 739SingaporeCited for the approach to determine whether an employee had misconducted himself to justify summary dismissal.
Speechly Bircham LLP v NsabaEmployment Appeal TribunalYesUKEAT/0186/07/MAAUnited KingdomCited by the defendant, but found to be unhelpful to their case. The case involved an employee's repudiatory breach of contract.
Allan Trevor Gould v St George Area Intellectual Disability ServicesDistrict Court of New South WalesYes[2007] NSWDC 166AustraliaCited by the defendant, but found to be unhelpful to their case. The case involved an employee's renunciation of the employment contract.
The Mihalis AngelosCourt of AppealYes[1971] 1 QB 164United KingdomCited for the minimum legal obligation rule, limiting damages to the least disadvantageous method for the defaulting party.
Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough CouncilCourt of AppealYes[1981] 1 Ch. 448United KingdomCited for the principle that damages for wrongful dismissal are limited to the period the employer could lawfully terminate the contract, but also for the interplay between termination rights and disciplinary procedures.
Alexander Proudfoot Productivity Services Co S'pore Pte Ltd v Sim Hua Ngee Alvin and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 933SingaporeCited for the normal measure of damages in wrongful dismissal cases and the application of the minimum legal obligation rule.
Cockburn v AlexanderCourt of Common PleasYes(1848), 6 C.B. 791United KingdomCited for the assumption that the defaulting party would exercise a right least disadvantageous to minimize damages.
Withers v General Theatre CorpCourt of AppealYes[1933] 2 K.B. 536United KingdomCited for the assumption that the defaulting party would exercise a right least disadvantageous to minimize damages.
Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 N.Z.L.R. 169New ZealandCited for the approach of placing the burden on the plaintiff to show that the defendant would not have chosen the most advantageous method of performing or terminating the contract.
Hamilton v Open Window Bakery LtdCourt of AppealYes(2002) 211 D.L.R. (4th) 443CanadaCited for the assessment of damages requiring only a determination of the minimum performance the plaintiff was entitled to under the contract.
Engineering Construction Pte Ltd v The Attorney General & AnorCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 392SingaporeCited for the principle that the application of the minimum legal obligation rule can be displaced if the facts belie the possibility of the defaulting party's adopting such a route.
Lavarack v Woods of Colchester LtdCourt of AppealYes[1967] 1 QB 278United KingdomCited for the principle that the court must not assume that a party will act to reduce their legal obligation by incurring greater loss in other respects.
The Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Navigation Pty LtdHigh CourtYes[1991] 174 C.L.R. 64AustraliaCited for expressing a contrary view on the burden of proof in displacing the application of the minimum legal obligation rule.
Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore AirlinesHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 233SingaporeCited by the defendant, but distinguished by the court. The case held that an employee was not entitled to a disciplinary hearing because the employer's Personnel Procedures Manual was not incorporated into the contract.
Marley v Forward Trust GroupCourt of AppealYes(1986) I.C.R.891United KingdomCited for the principle that terms expressed as guidelines or non-binding may acquire contractual effect upon incorporation into the contract.
T.W.Thomas & Co., Limited v Portsea Steamship Company, LimitedHouse of LordsYes[1912] A.C 1United KingdomCited for the principle that an arbitration clause in a charter party should not be incorporated into a bill of lading without specific words.
Hong Kong Borneo Services v PilcherQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593United KingdomCited for the principle that an arbitration clause in a charter party should not be incorporated into a bill of lading without specific words.
Izzard v Universal InsuranceHouse of LordsYes[1937] A.C 773United KingdomCited for the principle that an express term in a contract prevails over any inconsistent incorporated term.
Kumagai-Zenecon Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and Another v Arab Bank plc (Low Hua Kin, Third Party)High CourtYes[1997] 1 SLR(R) 277SingaporeCited for the principle that the express terms of a contract are capable of overriding terms incorporated by reference if inconsistent with such incorporated terms.
W&S Pollock & Co v MacraeCourt of SessionYes[1922] S.L.T. 510ScotlandCited by the plaintiff, but found to be irrelevant. The case concerned the construction of exclusion clauses.
Smith v UMB Chrysler (Scotland) LtdHouse of LordsYes[1978] 1 W.L.R. 165United KingdomCited by the plaintiff, but found to be irrelevant. The case concerned the construction of exclusion clauses.
Integrated Systems South East Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Yiguang (suing by the committee and estate of his person, Tong Wen Li)High CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 255SingaporeCited by the defendant, but distinguished by the court. The case concerned implied incorporation of a personnel handbook.
Bradford Building Society v BordersHouse of LordsYes[1941] 2 All ER 205United KingdomCited for the requirements to be satisfied for a claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation.
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435SingaporeCited for adopting the requirements to be satisfied for a claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation.
Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore)High CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 501SingaporeCited for the requirements that have to be met before an omission to state a particular fact can amount to a misrepresentation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Central Provident Fund ActSingapore
Rules of CourtSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Letter of Offer
  • Commencement Date
  • Summary Dismissal
  • Minimum Legal Obligation Rule
  • Disciplinary Hearing
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Induction Session
  • Resignation
  • Employment Contract

15.2 Keywords

  • wrongful dismissal
  • employment contract
  • Standard Chartered Bank
  • Fermin Aldabe
  • Singapore High Court

16. Subjects

  • Employment Dispute
  • Wrongful Termination
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Employment Law
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure