Ramesh v AXA Life: Negligence, Duty of Care, and Employer References
In Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard Civil Appeal No 112 of 2015 on 25 November 2015, with judgment reserved until 27 July 2016. The court, led by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Steven Chong J, addressed whether AXA Life breached its duty of care to Ramesh in preparing references for prospective employers Prudential and Tokio Marine, and whether this breach caused Ramesh's failure to secure employment. The court answered affirmatively regarding Prudential, allowing the appeal in part, finding AXA Life negligent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Court of Appeal held AXA Life negligent in preparing references for Ramesh, impacting his Prudential job offer. Duty of care breached.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh S/O Krishnan | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam |
| AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Partially Lost | Partial | Pillai K Muralidharan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Pillai K Muralidharan | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Ramesh was engaged by AXA Life as an adviser and financial services associate manager.
- AXA Life discovered Ramesh's former principals terminated his services due to poor persistency and compliance record.
- Ramesh was promoted to financial services director and led the Ramesh Organisation within AXA Life.
- The relationship between Ramesh and AXA Life deteriorated due to changes in assessment criteria for awards.
- Ramesh resigned from AXA Life after being barred from an event and served a termination letter.
- Ramesh applied to Prudential, and AXA Life provided a reference check form.
- Prudential sought clarification from AXA Life on the information provided in the reference check form.
- MAS sought information from AXA Life about Ramesh's resignation.
- Prudential withdrew its RNF Licence Application for Ramesh.
5. Formal Citations
- Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, , [2016] SGCA 47
- Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, 112 of 2015, Civil Appeal No 112 of 2015
- Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, 1022 of 2012, Suit No 1022 of 2012
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant engaged by Respondent | |
| Industry Reference Check System started | |
| Appellant appointed financial services director | |
| Representative Notification Framework established | |
| Appellant and advisers contemplate resigning | |
| Agency Persistency Workshop for Financial Services Directors held | |
| Appellant barred from event and served termination letter | |
| Appellant resigns | |
| Prudential sends reference check request to Respondent | |
| Respondent sends completed Reference Check Form to Prudential | |
| Prudential asks Respondent for names of advisers investigated | |
| Respondent replies to Prudential | |
| Respondent sends Prudential details of investigation on Appellant | |
| Prudential makes Appellant conditional offer of employment | |
| Prudential asks Respondent for persistency ratios and outcome of cases | |
| Appellant executes statutory declaration | |
| Prudential sends Respondent another email for persistency ratios | |
| Prudential makes RNF Licence Application for Appellant from MAS | |
| Appellant approaches chairman of MAS and Member of Parliament | |
| Respondent sends letter to Prudential's CEO | |
| MAS inquires further on reasons for wanting to terminate Appellant's services | |
| Respondent replies to MAS | |
| MAS replies to Appellant | |
| Prudential informs MAS of withdrawal of application | |
| Appellant applies to Tokio Marine | |
| Respondent sends Reference Check Form to Tokio Marine | |
| Tokio Marine asks Appellant for more information | |
| Appellant replies to Tokio Marine | |
| Appellant seeks assistance from DPM Teo again | |
| MAS writes to Appellant | |
| Court of Appeal hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that AXA Life breached its duty of care to Ramesh in preparing references for prospective employers.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inaccurate reference
- Misleading information
- Unfair representation
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 2 AC 296
- Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the breach of duty caused Prudential not to employ Ramesh.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impact on employment prospects
- Intervening factors
- Standard of Care
- Outcome: The court defined the standard of care expected of a former employer in preparing a reference for a former employee.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable care
- Accuracy of information
- Fairness of representation
- Related Cases:
- [1987] IRLR 404
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for economic loss
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Insurance Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | The High Court judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim on the basis that the Respondent had not breached its duty of care. |
| Spring v Guardian Assurance plc and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 296 | England | Cited as a key case establishing an employer's duty of care in preparing references. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the framework used in determining the existence of a duty of care. |
| Lawton v BOC Transhield Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [1987] IRLR 404 | England | Cited for establishing that an employer owes a duty of care to ensure opinions in references are based on accurate facts. |
| Spring v Guardian Assurance plc and others | English High Court | Yes | [1992] IRLR 173 | England | Cited for the facts of the case being similar to the present case, in that both concern the financial services industry. |
| Bartholomew v London Borough of Hackney | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] IRLR 246 | England | Cited for holding that a reference must be true, accurate and fair, and must not give an unfair or misleading overall impression even if its discrete components were factually correct. |
| Kidd v AXA Equity & Law Life Assurance Society plc and another | English High Court | Yes | [2000] IRLR 301 | England | Cited for holding that the provider of a reference did not have a duty to give a full and comprehensive reference or to include in the reference all material facts, even though it had a duty not to give false or misleading information. |
| Cox v Sun Alliance Life Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] IRLR 448 | England | Cited for a case where the employer was found to have failed to take reasonable care both to ensure that the facts stated in the reference which it provided were true and to ensure that the reference as a whole was fair. |
| TSB Bank plc v Harris | Employment Appeal Tribunal | Yes | [2000] IRLR 157 | England | Cited for the observations made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in that case are nonetheless relevant and useful for our purposes. |
| Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the implied term of trust and confidence in an employment contract. |
| The Cherry and others | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 471 | Singapore | Cited for the exercise of establishing causation should not be unduly technical or pedantic, and is largely a matter of common sense. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2688 v Rott George Hugo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 787 | Singapore | Cited for the exercise of establishing causation should not be unduly technical or pedantic, and is largely a matter of common sense. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Financial Advisers Act | Singapore |
| Securities and Futures Act | Singapore |
| Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Duty of care
- Reference check
- Persistency ratio
- Compliance issues
- Representative Notification Framework
- Industry Reference Check System
- Financial adviser
- Twisting
- Fit and proper
- RNF licence
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- duty of care
- employer reference
- financial advisor
- insurance
- persistency ratio
- compliance
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Employment Law
- Financial Regulation
- Insurance
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Negligence
- Insurance Law
- Civil Procedure