Asnah v Jin Ting: Appeal on Unpaid Salary Claim under Employment Act

Asnah and Chua Guan Soon, trading as Beauty Hair, appealed against the Assistant Commissioner for Labour's decision to award $5,212.59 in unpaid salary to Jin Ting. The High Court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, allowed the appeal in part, finding that the ACL erred in finding that the respondent had not been paid her salary. The court determined that the applicants were only obliged to pay the respondent $600 for her work in November 2015, after setting off an unpaid loan of $300.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding unpaid salary claim by Jin Ting against Beauty Hair. The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the awarded amount.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Asnah @ Lee Li ZhenApplicantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
Chua Guan SoonApplicantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
Jin TingRespondentIndividualPartial VictoryPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The respondent, a Chinese national, worked as a beautician for the applicants' salon under an S-Pass.
  2. The respondent's monthly salary was $2,600.
  3. The respondent worked for the applicants between August 2015 and November 2015.
  4. The applicants terminated the respondent’s S-Pass on 14 November 2015.
  5. The respondent complained to MOM that she had not been paid her salary from 19 August 2015 to 13 November 2015.
  6. The ACL allowed the respondent’s claim and made an order for the applicants to pay the respondent the sum of $5,212.59.
  7. The applicants produced payment vouchers that the respondent had signed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Asnah and another(trading as Beauty Hair)vJin Ting, , [2016] SGHC 255

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent began working for the applicants.
Applicants terminated the respondent’s S-Pass.
Respondent's employment ended.
Respondent and employment agency signed Refund Agreement.
Respondent complained to MOM about unpaid salary.
ACL allowed the respondent’s claim.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found that the ACL had given the parties a fair hearing and there was no breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Unpaid Salary
    • Outcome: The court found that the ACL erred in finding that the respondent had not been paid her salary and reduced the amount owed to $600 for work in November 2015.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Miscalculation of Salary
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the salary calculation based on evidence presented.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary compensation for unpaid salary

9. Cause of Actions

  • Recovery of unpaid salary

10. Practice Areas

  • Employment Dispute
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Beauty
  • Hair Salon

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment Act (Cap 91)Singapore
Section 115 of the Employment Act (Cap 91)Singapore
Section 117 of the Employment Act (Cap 91)Singapore
Section 120 of the Employment Act (Cap 91, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 20A of the Employment ActSingapore
Section 27(1)(f) of the Employment ActSingapore
Section 117 the Employment ActSingapore
Section 119(2) of the Employment ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Employment Act
  • Unpaid salary
  • S-Pass
  • Payment vouchers
  • Refund Agreement
  • Breach of natural justice
  • Assistant Commissioner for Labour

15.2 Keywords

  • Employment
  • Salary
  • Singapore
  • Labour
  • Appeal

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Labour Law
  • Civil Litigation