Long Kim Wing v LTX-Credence: Wrongful Dismissal, Misconduct, and Due Inquiry

In Long Kim Wing v LTX-Credence Singapore Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a wrongful dismissal claim by Long Kim Wing against his former employer, LTX-Credence. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, found that while Long Kim Wing had engaged in misconduct, LTX-Credence failed to conduct a 'due inquiry' as required by the employment agreement. The court awarded Long Kim Wing a portion of his claimed salary but also granted judgment to LTX-Credence on its counterclaim for unauthorized payments. The claim included a breach of contract claim and a negligence counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part; Judgment for Defendant on counterclaim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding wrongful dismissal. The court found misconduct but ruled the employer failed to conduct due inquiry.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Long Kim WingPlaintiff, Defendant-in-CounterclaimIndividualJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
LTX-Credence Singapore Pte LtdDefendant, Plaintiff-in-CounterclaimCorporationJudgment for Defendant on counterclaimWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eileen YeoAdvocatus Law LLP
Ganga AvadiarAdvocatus Law LLP
Jared ChenWongPartnership LLP
Rich SeetWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff was dismissed for alleged misconduct, including creating a forged offer letter and making unauthorized payments.
  2. The Plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal and sought severance pay and other benefits.
  3. The Defendant alleged lawful termination due to the Plaintiff's misconduct.
  4. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant failed to conduct 'due inquiry' before dismissing him.
  5. The Plaintiff created a Disputed Letter using the office laptop.
  6. The Plaintiff authorized a $30,000 advance payment to ST Lee without approval from Goldbach.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Long Kim Wing v LTX-Credence Singapore Pte Ltd, Suit No 906 of 2014, [2017] SGHC 151

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff dismissed from employment
Plaintiff removed as director
Plaintiff lodged a police report
Plaintiff made a second police report
Writ of summons filed
Trial began
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Wrongful Dismissal
    • Outcome: The court found that the dismissal was not entirely wrongful due to the plaintiff's misconduct, but the defendant failed to conduct due inquiry.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Misconduct
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff engaged in misconduct by creating a forged letter and authorizing unauthorized payments.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Due Inquiry
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant failed to conduct 'due inquiry' as required by the employment agreement before dismissing the plaintiff.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1974–1976] SLR(R) 307
      • [1997] 1 MLJ 352

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Severance Pay
  3. Salary in lieu of notice
  4. Salary in lieu of unconsumed leave
  5. Pro-rata share of 13th month salary
  6. Director's fees
  7. Reimbursement of expenses
  8. Damages for failure to procure similar employment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Wrongful Dismissal

10. Practice Areas

  • Employment Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Velayutham M v Port of Singapore AuthorityHigh CourtYes[1974–1976] SLR(R) 307SingaporeCited to define 'due inquiry' under the Employment Act.
Said Dharmalingam Bin Abdullah (formerly known as Dharmalingam A/l Ranganathan) v Malayan Breweries (Malaya) Sdn BhdUnknownYes[1997] 1 MLJ 352MalaysiaCited to define 'due inquiry' under the Employment Act 1955 (Malaysia), including the right to make representations on punishment.
Gunton v Richmond-Upon-Thames London Borough CouncilUnknownYes[1980] 3 WLR 714UnknownCited for the principle that an employee is entitled to salary for the reasonable time it would take to conduct 'due inquiry'.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment Act (Cap 91, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Misconduct
  • Due Inquiry
  • Forged Offer Letter
  • Unauthorized Payment
  • Severance Package
  • Administrative Leave
  • Letter of Termination

15.2 Keywords

  • employment
  • wrongful dismissal
  • misconduct
  • due inquiry
  • singapore
  • contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Employment Law95
Termination90
Due inquiry80
Commercial Disputes30
Contract Law20
Misrepresentation15
Fraud and Deceit15
Civil Procedure10

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure