Marken Limited (Singapore Branch) v Scott Ohanesian: Breach of Contract of Service & Termination Without Notice
In Marken Limited (Singapore Branch) v Scott Ohanesian, the High Court of Singapore addressed a breach of contract claim by Marken Limited (Singapore Branch) against Scott Ohanesian, who allegedly prematurely terminated his employment. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Foo Chee Hock, found in favor of Ohanesian, holding that he did not breach the employment agreement. The court dismissed Marken Singapore's claim in its entirety.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Claim dismissed in its entirety.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court held that Scott Ohanesian did not breach his employment agreement with Marken Limited by prematurely terminating his employment. The court dismissed Marken Singapore's claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marken Limited (Singapore Branch) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Celeste Ang, Sheik Umar, Lavania Rengarajoo, Omar Muzhaffar |
| Scott Ohanesian | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Chew Kei-Jin, Stephanie Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Foo Chee Hock | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Celeste Ang | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Sheik Umar | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Lavania Rengarajoo | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Omar Muzhaffar | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Chew Kei-Jin | Ascendant Legal LLC |
| Stephanie Tan | Ascendant Legal LLC |
4. Facts
- Scott Ohanesian was employed by Marken Limited (Singapore Branch) as Vice-President, Commercial Operations, Asia Pacific Region.
- The employment agreement was entered into in July 2012, with an effective date of June 1, 2012.
- An amendment agreement was signed on November 5, 2012, which became a point of contention regarding the effective date.
- The employment agreement included an 'international assignment' to Singapore for a period of two years.
- Scott Ohanesian left Marken Singapore’s employ on June 1, 2014.
- Marken Singapore claimed that Scott Ohanesian breached the employment agreement by prematurely terminating his employment without the requisite six months’ notice.
5. Formal Citations
- Marken Limited (Singapore Branch) v Scott Ohanesian, Suit No 478 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 227
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Scott Ohanesian's appointment with Marken commenced. | |
| Scott Ohanesian's transfer to the Singapore office commenced. | |
| Employment agreement entered into between Marken Singapore and Scott Ohanesian. | |
| Amendment agreement signed. | |
| Scott Ohanesian obtained his employment pass. | |
| Scott Ohanesian left Marken Singapore’s employ. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that Scott Ohanesian did not breach the employment agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Premature termination of employment
- Failure to provide requisite notice
- Contractual Interpretation
- Outcome: The court interpreted the employment agreement and amendment agreement in favor of Scott Ohanesian.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Effective date of agreement
- Amendment of contractual terms
- Parol evidence rule
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 1 SLR 219
- [2015] 5 SLR 1187
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029
- [2015] 3 SLR 732
- [2015] 3 SLR 885
- [2017] SGHC 22
8. Remedies Sought
- Loss of profits of approximately US$1,643,014
- Damages arising from deprivation of the opportunity to negotiate payment in exchange for releasing Scott from his notice period
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Employment Litigation
11. Industries
- Pharmaceuticals
- Life Sciences
- Logistics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 219 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of contractual interpretation, specifically the two-step contextual approach. |
| Y.E.S. F&B Group Pte Ltd v Soup Restaurant Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Soup Restaurant (Causeway Point) Pte Ltd) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1187 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of contractual interpretation, specifically the two-step contextual approach. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in contractual interpretation and the Zurich criteria. |
| Xia Zhengyan v Geng Changqing | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 732 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations as evidence. |
| HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Ltd v Lucky Realty Co Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 885 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations as evidence. |
| CIFG Special Assets Capital I Ltd (formerly known as Diamond Kendall Limited) v Polimet Pte Ltd and others (Chris Chia Woon Liat and another, third parties) | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 22 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations as evidence. |
| Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 782 | Singapore | Cited regarding causation in determining loss. |
| Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 363 | Singapore | Cited regarding remoteness of damages. |
| PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 129 | Singapore | Cited regarding the nature of Wrotham Park damages. |
| Marathon Asset Management LLP v James Seddon | N/A | Yes | [2017] EWHC 300 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited regarding the nature of Wrotham Park damages. |
| Hadley v Baxendale | N/A | Yes | Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145 | England and Wales | Cited regarding remoteness of damages. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 94(f) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 95 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 96 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Employment Agreement
- International Assignment
- Amendment Agreement
- Effective Date
- Termination without notice
- Contractual Interpretation
- Breach of Contract
- Parol evidence rule
15.2 Keywords
- employment agreement
- breach of contract
- termination
- international assignment
- contractual interpretation
- Singapore
- employment law
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Contractual Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Contractual Interpretation