Sahara Energy v Chu Said Thong: Breach of Employment Agreements and Video Link Evidence
Sahara Energy International Pte Ltd sued Chu Said Thong and Jo Choon Ho for breach of their employment agreements in the High Court of Singapore. The court heard and dismissed Sahara's application for leave to have witnesses give evidence through video link. Sahara's claim was for breach of contract and the defendants filed counterclaims for wrongful dismissal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sahara Energy sued Chu and Jo for breach of employment agreements. The court dismissed Sahara's application for video link evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sahara Energy International Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Chu Said Thong | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | |
| Jo Choon Ho | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | |
| Sahara Energy Int’l Pte Ltd Singapore (Geneva Branch) | Defendant in Counterclaim | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Sahara sued Chu and Jo for breach of their employment agreements.
- Chu and Jo's services were terminated on 9 July 2018.
- Sahara applied for its witnesses in Geneva to give evidence via video link.
- The defendants opposed the application for video link evidence.
- The court dismissed Sahara's application for video link evidence.
- The court found that the witnesses were unwilling, not unable, to attend in person.
5. Formal Citations
- Sahara Energy International Pte Ltd v Chu Said Thong and another, Suit No 795 of 2018 (Summons No 2835 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 272
- Anil Singh Gurm v JS Yeh & Co and another, , [2020] 1 SLR 555
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Chu's employment agreement dated | |
| Chu was employed by Sahara | |
| Jo's employment agreement dated | |
| Jo was employed by Sahara | |
| Services of Chu and Jo were terminated | |
| Toyota Contract entered into | |
| Contract to sell Product to E1 Corporation | |
| Jo hedged Sahara’s position on the E1 Contract | |
| Jo informed Chu that the E1 Contract had incurred a loss of $1,851,281.30 | |
| Sale of Product concluded | |
| Jo misrepresented losses in weekly report | |
| Sahara made aware of losses | |
| Ascerbis hedged 40% of the August and September positions | |
| Chu was pressed by Ascerbis to hedge 56% of the October to December 2018 positions | |
| Defendants' services terminated | |
| Sahara filed statement of claim | |
| Pleadings were closed | |
| Sahara informed the court by letter that it would be calling foreign witnesses | |
| Sahara informed the court of the location of the witnesses | |
| Covid-19 circuit breaker measures were lifted | |
| Pre-trial conference hearing | |
| Order of court | |
| Travel advisory issued by the Ministry of Health | |
| Implementation of Phase 2 | |
| AEICs of Guillebone and Nabil were filed | |
| Sahara applied for leave under s 62A of the Evidence Act | |
| Chu's affidavit filed | |
| Letter from Mr. Tan to Defendants' counsel | |
| First hearing of the Application | |
| Assistant Registrar directed that Sahara file reply affidavit | |
| Sahara filed an affidavit by Jean-Guillaume Latreille De Lavarde | |
| Mr Tan received information that ICA requires a visitor to Singapore to be quarantined for 14 days | |
| Jo Choon Ho’s affidavit | |
| Jo’s opposing affidavit filed | |
| Second hearing | |
| Trial commences | |
| Trial concludes | |
| Appeal to the Court of Appeal | |
| Grounds of Decision |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Video Link Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for video link evidence, finding that the witnesses were unwilling, not unable, to attend in person.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 555
- Breach of Employment Agreement
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on this issue, as the hearing was only for the admissibility of video link evidence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for breach of employment agreement
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Energy
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anil Singh Gurm v JS Yeh & Co and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 555 | Singapore | Cited for the legal threshold for leave to be granted for witnesses to give evidence from overseas under s 62A of the Evidence Act. The court relied heavily on this case in making its decision. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 62A of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Video link evidence
- Employment agreement
- Breach of contract
- Section 62A Evidence Act
- Inability to attend
- Unwillingness to attend
15.2 Keywords
- video link
- evidence
- employment
- breach
- contract
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Employment Law | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Witnesses | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Employment Law