Nair v Glaxosmithkline: Breach of Employment Agreement & Employer's Duty of Mutual Trust

In Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd, heard in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 27-29 July 2022, 3-4 August 2022, and 26 September 2022, with judgment reserved on 18 October 2022, the plaintiff, Kallivalap Praveen Nair, sued his former employer, Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd, for breach of his employment agreement, alleging discrimination and lost opportunities for roles in GSK and Unilever. GSK counterclaimed for mistaken overpayment of severance. The court dismissed Nair's claims and GSK's counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claims dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Kallivalap Praveen Nair sues Glaxosmithkline for breach of employment agreement, alleging discrimination and lost opportunities. Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Kallivalap Praveen NairPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLostVikram Nair, Foo Xian Fong, Glenna Liew
Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedNeutralAng Hsueh Ling Celeste, Kwong Kam Yin, Tan Yi Wei Nicholas, Lim Jia Ren

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kwek Mean LuckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Vikram NairRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Foo Xian FongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Glenna LiewRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ang Hsueh Ling CelesteWong & Leow LLC
Kwong Kam YinWong & Leow LLC
Tan Yi Wei NicholasWong & Leow LLC
Lim Jia RenWong & Leow LLC

4. Facts

  1. Praveen was employed by GSK as Global Expert Director for Nutrition and Digestive Health business.
  2. Praveen claimed GSK discriminated against him and caused him to lose job opportunities.
  3. GSK announced the sale of its Nutrition business to Unilever.
  4. GSK announced its acquisition of Pfizer’s consumer business.
  5. Praveen was not included in the initial list of GSK personnel eligible for Unilever roles.
  6. Praveen was not selected for new Global Expert Category roles after GSK's restructuring.
  7. Praveen was informed that there were no roles available for him and he would be made redundant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd, Suit No 171 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 261

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Praveen signed a Letter of Appointment with GSK.
Praveen relocated to Singapore with his family.
GlaxoSmithKline announced the sale of its Nutrition business to Unilever.
GlaxoSmithKline announced its acquisition of Pfizer’s consumer business.
Praveen interacted with Unilever personnel to discuss opportunities at Unilever.
GSK held a town hall meeting.
GSK held a town hall meeting.
GSK announced the appointment of Tess Player to the Global Head of Expert Marketing role.
Praveen took part in GSK’s assessment and selection process for new Global Expert Category roles.
GSK announced the appointments for the LT-2 roles that Praveen applied for.
GSK announced the appointments for the LT-2 roles that Praveen applied for.
Rick Sheppard informed Praveen that there were no roles available for him and that he would be made redundant.
A notice of redundancy was issued to Praveen.
The Unilever Deal was completed.
Original last day of employment for Praveen.
Extended last day of employment for Praveen.
Suit No 171 of 2021 filed.
Hearing began.
Hearing concluded.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Employment Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of the employment agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with company policies
      • Unjustified shorter notice period
      • Incorrect severance payment calculation
  2. Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the employment agreement did not contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence that contractually bound the employer to comply with all its policies.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Employer's obligation to comply with internal policies
      • Discrimination
      • Retaliation
  3. Unjust Enrichment
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for unjust enrichment, finding that the defendant had not proven that the payment was made under a mistake.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Mistake of fact
      • Change of position

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Discrimination

10. Practice Areas

  • Employment Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare
  • Pharmaceuticals

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited for the test for implying a term in fact.
Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 2 SLR 577SingaporeCited to support the position that an implied term of mutual trust and confidence is implied by law into a contract of employment under Singapore law.
Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] 1 SLR 1318SingaporeCited to submit that the issue of whether ITMTC is part of Singapore law is still an open question.
Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 357SingaporeCited to show that the Court of Appeal did not formally endorse the existence of the ITMTC.
The One Suites Pte Ltd v Pacific Motor Credit (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 695SingaporeCited to show that Wee Kim San left open the position in Singapore on the existence of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v BarkerHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2014) 312 ALR 356AustraliaCited to support the position that the ITMTC should not be recognized under Singapore law.
Malik v BCCIHouse of LordsYes[1998] AC 20United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty not to act in a corrupt manner which would clearly undermine the employee’s future job prospects.
Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) LtdEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[1982] ICR 693United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty not to unilaterally and unreasonably vary terms.
W A Goold (Pearmak) Ltd v McConnellEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[1995] IRLR 516United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty to redress complaints of discrimination or provide a grievance procedure.
Gogay v Hertfordshire CCEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[2000] IRLR 703United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty not to suspend an employee for disciplinary purposes without proper and reasonable cause.
Bracebridge Engineering Ltd v DarbyEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[1990] IRLR 3United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty to enquire into complaints of sexual harassment.
Isle of Wight Tourist Board v CoombesEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[1976] IRLR 413United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty to behave with civility and respect.
Hilton International Hotels (UK) v ProtopapaEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[1990] IRLR 316United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty not to reprimand without merit in a humiliating circumstance.
British Aircraft Corporation Ltd v AustinEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[1978] IRLR 332United KingdomCited as an example of the application of an ITMTC, specifically a duty not to behave in an intolerable or wholly unacceptable way.
T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn BhdHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the proposition that an agreement in order to be binding must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to give it a practical meaning.
G Scammell and Nephew, Limited v H C and J G OustonHouse of LordsYes[1941] AC 251United KingdomCited for the proposition that an agreement in order to be binding must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to give it a practical meaning.
Jet Holding Ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited to show that the doctrine of implication of terms in law inevitably raises some degree of uncertainty given the broadness of the criteria utilized to imply such terms.
Ng Giap Hon v Westcomb Securities Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited to show that courts must be cautious in determining whether to imply certain terms in law and carefully consider the degree of uncertainty that such terms may introduce.
Tan Swee Wan and another v Johnny Lian Tian YongHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 169SingaporeCited to show that a term stating that “the ultimate objective … was to list [a company] on NASDAQ, a stock exchange in the United States of America” was merely “an aspiration” and not contractually binding.
Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 927SingaporeCited for the principle that once a term has been implied in law, such a term will be implied in all future contracts of that particular type.
Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 26SingaporeCited to show that it is impermissible for the courts to arrogate to themselves legislative powers or become mini-legislatures.
Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 492SingaporeCited as an example of courts making advancements in areas of common law, which affect a polarity of parties.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 142SingaporeCited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and the court is precluded from deciding on a matter that the parties themselves have decided not to put into issue.
Poh Lian Construction (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation) v Lauw Wisanggeni and others (Chia Quee Hock and others, third parties)High CourtYes[2019] SGHC 114SingaporeCited for the principle that it is only in very rare circumstances where no prejudice is caused to the other party or where it would be clearly unjust for the court not to do so that a court should decide on the basis of unpleaded issues or claims.
Han Hui Hui and others v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 141SingaporeCited to show that an advisory issued by the Tripartite Alliance regarding COVID-19 vaccination at workplaces did not have the force of law, amount to a policy directive, or carry any legal effect.
Singapore Swimming Club v Koh Sin Chong FreddieCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 845SingaporeCited for the elements required to succeed in a claim for unjust enrichment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Employment Agreement
  • Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence
  • Redundancy
  • Severance Payment
  • Discrimination
  • Assessment and Selection Process
  • Talent Appointment
  • Geographic Pooling Principle
  • Policies

15.2 Keywords

  • employment agreement
  • breach of contract
  • discrimination
  • redundancy
  • severance
  • mutual trust
  • Glaxosmithkline
  • GSK
  • Unilever
  • employment law
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Contract Law
  • Discrimination
  • Redundancy

17. Areas of Law

  • Employment Law
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure