Liu Huaixi v Haniffa Pte Ltd: Employment Act Claims & Salary Dispute
In Liu Huaixi v Haniffa Pte Ltd, before the High Court of Singapore on 1 November 2017, the applicant, Liu Huaixi, appealed against the decision of the Assistant Commissioner for Labour regarding his claim against the respondent, Haniffa Pte Ltd, for short payment of salary under the Employment Act. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, ordering the respondent to pay $6,500 to the applicant, along with costs. The primary legal issue was whether the respondent had paid the applicant the full salary he was entitled to. The court found in favor of the applicant regarding the basic monthly salary but adjusted the amount based on working hours and payments already made.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving Liu Huaixi and Haniffa Pte Ltd, concerning claims under the Employment Act for short payment of salary. The court allowed the appeal in part.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu Huaixi | Applicant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Sharleen Eio |
| Haniffa Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Partially Upheld | Lost | Namazie Mirza Mohamed, Ong Ai Weern |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sharleen Eio | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Namazie Mirza Mohamed | Mallal & Namazie |
| Ong Ai Weern | Mallal & Namazie |
4. Facts
- The applicant claimed a shortfall in salary payments from the respondent.
- The applicant was employed by the respondent from 7 April 2014 to 23 March 2016.
- The applicant's initial claim was for short payment of salary, non-payment of salary, and compensation in lieu of notice.
- The Commissioner dismissed the bulk of the applicant's claims, finding a mistake in overtime computation only.
- The In-Principle Approval (IPA) stated the applicant's basic monthly salary as $1,100.
- The respondent claimed the applicant's basic monthly salary was $680, with the balance for housing allowance and overtime pay.
- The applicant signed a payslip and letter of release for March 2016 salary.
5. Formal Citations
- Liu Huaixi v Haniffa Pte Ltd, Tribunal Appeal No 15 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 270
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant employed as warehouse assistant | |
| Start of claim period considered by Commissioner | |
| Applicant employed as supermarket storekeeper | |
| Start of non-payment of salary claim period | |
| Applicant's employment ended | |
| Applicant lodged complaint with Ministry of Manpower | |
| Assistant Commissioner for Labour dismissed bulk of applicant's claim | |
| High Court allowed applicant's appeal in part | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Short Payment of Salary
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's basic monthly salary was $1,100 and that he was entitled to additional payments for overtime and work on rest days.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Calculation of overtime pay
- Calculation of pay for work on rest days
- Payment in Lieu of Notice of Termination
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent did not give sufficient notice and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant two days' worth of his gross rate of pay.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment of outstanding salary
- Compensation in lieu of notice
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Violation of Employment Act
10. Practice Areas
- Employment Disputes
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 577 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Commissioner is to be heard by way of rehearing and this court is not constrained to reviewing the decision below for jurisdictional or manifest error or unreasonableness. |
| SATS Construction Pte Ltd v Islam Md Ohidul | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1164 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs can be awarded even when counsel is acting pro bono. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 55 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment Act (Cap 91) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rule 5) | Singapore |
| Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations 2012 (Cap 91A, S 569/2012) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Employment Act
- In-Principle Approval
- Basic monthly salary
- Work permit
- Commissioner for Labour
- Short payment
- Termination of employment
- Payment in lieu of notice
15.2 Keywords
- employment act
- salary
- singapore
- labour
- IPA
- work permit
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Salary Disputes
- Labour Law
17. Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure