Ramesh Krishnan v AXA Life: Negligence in Employment Reference & Damages Assessment
In Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore assessed damages payable by AXA Life to Ramesh Krishnan for negligence. The Court of Appeal had previously found AXA Life liable for providing a negligent employment reference to Prudential, causing Prudential not to hire Krishnan. The court awarded Krishnan $4,026,000 for loss of earnings, calculating damages based on the conditional offer from Prudential and deducting earnings from Krishnan's restaurant business. The court declined to award aggravated damages.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $4,026,000 (SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court assesses damages for AXA Life's negligent employment reference, impacting Ramesh Krishnan's Prudential job offer. Court awards $4,026,000.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh s/o Krishnan | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Cheong Jun Ming Mervyn, Suang Wijaya |
| AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Damages Awarded Against | Lost | Pillai K Muralidharan, Luo Qinghui, Mark Foo, Andrea Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| George Wei | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Cheong Jun Ming Mervyn | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Pillai K Muralidharan | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Luo Qinghui | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Mark Foo | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Andrea Tan | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was a successful financial services director at AXA Life.
- Defendant provided a reference to Prudential that contained misleading information about the Plaintiff's persistency ratios.
- Defendant failed to provide complete information about compliance issues involving the Plaintiff and his advisers.
- Prudential made the Plaintiff a conditional offer of employment.
- MAS raised concerns about the Plaintiff's working relationship with the Defendant.
- Prudential withdrew its application for an RNF licence and decided not to hire the Plaintiff.
- The Court of Appeal found that the Defendant's negligence caused Prudential not to hire the Plaintiff.
5. Formal Citations
- Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, Suit No 1022 of 2012, [2017] SGHC 197
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff engaged by Defendant as an adviser and financial services associate manager. | |
| Plaintiff promoted to financial services director. | |
| Plaintiff promoted to senior financial services director. | |
| Mr. Glenn Williams appointed as the new chief executive officer of the Defendant. | |
| Plaintiff and advisers contemplated resigning. | |
| Plaintiff served with a letter of termination but requested to resign instead, which was accepted. | |
| Plaintiff resigned from Defendant. | |
| Plaintiff applied to join Prudential Assurance Company Singapore Private Limited. | |
| Prudential sent a reference check request to the Defendant. | |
| Defendant sent the completed Reference Check Form back to Prudential. | |
| Prudential made the Plaintiff a conditional offer of employment with an establishment package. | |
| Prudential sought further information from the Defendant. | |
| Plaintiff sought assistance from his Member of Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean. | |
| Prudential sought further information from the Defendant. | |
| Prudential applied to MAS for an RNF licence for the Plaintiff. | |
| Mr. Williams sent a letter to Prudential’s CEO, copying MAS. | |
| MAS contacted the Defendant seeking information about the Plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff posted on Facebook that he was retiring. | |
| Prudential withdrew its application for an RNF licence and decided not to hire the Plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff applied to Tokio Marine for a job as a financial adviser. | |
| Plaintiff sought assistance from his Member of Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean. | |
| MAS wrote to the Plaintiff, explaining that it had “several issues of concern”. | |
| Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the Defendant. | |
| High Court dismissed all three claims. | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal in part, finding that the Defendant was liable to the Plaintiff in negligence. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found the Defendant liable for negligence in providing an inaccurate and misleading employment reference.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care in providing employment reference
- Causation of loss due to negligent reference
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 4 SLR 1124
- Damages Assessment
- Outcome: The court awarded damages for loss of earnings based on the conditional offer from Prudential, but declined to award aggravated damages.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Quantification of loss of earnings
- Mitigation of losses
- Aggravated damages
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623
- [2011] 1 SLR 150
- Causation
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Defendant's breach of duty caused Prudential not to hire the Plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the negligent reference caused Prudential not to hire the Plaintiff
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 2 AC 296
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Insurance Litigation
- Employment Litigation
11. Industries
- Insurance
- Financial Services
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 | Sets out the initial decision of the High Court dismissing the Plaintiff's claims, which was later appealed. |
| Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1124 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal's judgment that established the Defendant's liability in negligence and remitted the matter for damages to be assessed. |
| Spring v Guardian Assurance plc and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 296 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff claiming negligence in a reference needs to show loss of a reasonable chance of employment. |
| Parabola Investments Ltd and another v Browallia Cal Ltd (formerly Union Cal Ltd) and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] QB 477 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that the balance of probability test does not apply to the measurement of consequential loss. |
| Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff must prove both the fact of damage and its amount, and that nominal damages will be awarded if no evidence is given as to the amount of damage. |
| MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must 'do the best that it can' based on the evidence, even where there are difficulties in ascertaining the precise extent of a plaintiff's losses. |
| Parabola Investments Ltd & Anor v Browallia CAL Ltd & Ors | High Court | Yes | [2009] EWHC 901 (Comm) | England and Wales | The High Court decision in Parabola Investments, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, which was cited for the approach to estimating loss of profits. |
| Vasiliou v Hajigeorgiou | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] EWCA Civ 1475 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court must estimate the loss by making the best attempt it can to evaluate the chances, taking all significant factors into account. |
| XYZ v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust | High Court | Yes | [2011] EWHC 243 (QB) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where there cannot be certainty as to the way in which the claimant’s business would have developed, the court may assess damages by evaluating the chance that particular events would have happened at particular times. |
| The Asia Star | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 1154 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proving that the aggrieved party has failed to fulfil its duty to mitigate falls on the defaulting party. |
| Calix v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago | Privy Council | Yes | [2013] 1 WLR 3283 | Trinidad and Tobago | Cited for the principle that an alleged failure to mitigate must be pleaded. |
| Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh and another v Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (now known as QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd) and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 735 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damages must be reasonably foreseeable. |
| Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 629 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that aggravated damages are compensatory in nature. |
| ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 918 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that aggravated damages serve a compensatory function and are distinct from punitive damages. |
| AYW v AYX | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1183 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the question of whether aggravated damages are available in Singapore for a claim in negligence has not yet been authoritatively decided. |
| Kralj and another v McGrath and another | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1986] 1 All ER 54 | England and Wales | Cited as an authority for the proposition that aggravated damages are not awarded for negligence claims. |
| AB v South West Water Services Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 All ER 609 | England and Wales | Cited for the view that aggravated damages should not be available in the tort of negligence. |
| Tan Harry and another v Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius and another | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 513 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that exceptional or contumelious conduct or motive in committing the wrongdoing is necessary for aggravated damages. |
| Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 667 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the defendant must have suffered some kind of intangible loss, whether in the form of distress, injury to personality, or injury to feelings for aggravated damages. |
| Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal Company | N/A | Yes | (1880) 5 App Cas 25 | N/A | Cited for the principle that when a tortious wrong has been committed by a defendant, the plaintiff ought to be restored to the same position as if the tort had not been committed. |
| Chaplin v Hicks | N/A | Yes | [1911] 2 KB 786 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the fact that a plaintiff’s expectation may depend on a contingency or on contingencies does not necessarily preclude a court from awarding substantial damages even if the plaintiff’s loss cannot be assessed with mathematical accuracy. |
| Biggin & Co Ltd v Permalite Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1951] 1 KB 422 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where precise evidence is obtainable, the court expects to have it; where it is not obtainable, the court must do the best it can. |
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1317 | N/A | Cited for the principle that when a tortious wrong has been committed by a defendant, the plaintiff ought to be restored to the same position as if the tort had not been committed. |
| Davies v Taylor | N/A | Yes | [1974] AC 207 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where there cannot be certainty as to the way in which the claimant’s business would have developed, the court may assess damages by evaluating the chance that particular events would have happened at particular times. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Financial Advisers Act (Cap 110, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Persistency Ratio
- Representative Notification Framework
- Industry Reference Check Form
- Establishment Package
- Financial Services Director
- Group Financial Services Director
- Loss of Earnings
- Aggravated Damages
- Mitigation of Losses
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- damages
- employment reference
- insurance
- financial services
- AXA Life
- Ramesh Krishnan
- Prudential
- loss of earnings
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Negligence
- Damages
- Employment Reference
- Insurance
- Financial Services
17. Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Negligence
- Damages Assessment
- Employment Law
- Insurance Law