Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia: Breach of Employment Contract & Implied Terms
In Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia, the Singapore High Court dismissed Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd's claim against Mr. Pawan Kumar Jagetia for breach of his employment contract and partially allowed Mr. Jagetia's counterclaim. The court found no implied term requiring Mr. Jagetia to relocate to Singapore with his family. The court awarded Mr. Jagetia the repatriation allowance, short-term incentive, CIPL STI, and salary in lieu of notice. Hoo Sheau Peng J delivered the judgment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Defendant in part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment: Carlsberg South Asia's breach of contract claim against Pawan Kumar Jagetia is dismissed; Jagetia's counterclaim is partially allowed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Pawan Kumar Jagetia | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Pawan Kumar Jagetia was employed as Senior Vice President of Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd from April 1, 2018, to June 26, 2019.
- Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd claimed Jagetia breached his employment contract by not relocating to Singapore.
- Jagetia counterclaimed for sums allegedly owed to him, including short-term incentives and repatriation allowance.
- The employment contract included a relocation allowance and an annual benefits package.
- The court found no implied term requiring Jagetia to relocate to Singapore with his family.
- The court found that the plaintiff wrongfully terminated the defendant's employment.
5. Formal Citations
- Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia, Suit No 114 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 74
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Pawan Kumar Jagetia became the Deputy Managing Director of Carlsberg India Pvt Ltd | |
| Pawan Kumar Jagetia became the Senior Vice President of Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd | |
| Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd SVP Contract signed | |
| Pawan Kumar Jagetia's employment was terminated | |
| Suit No 114 of 2020 filed | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that there was no breach of contract by the defendant regarding relocation. The court found that the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to pay the full short-term incentive and wrongfully terminating the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to relocate
- Failure to pay short-term incentive
- Wrongful termination
- Implied Terms
- Outcome: The court held that there was no implied term requiring the defendant to relocate to Singapore with his family.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Relocation obligation
- Mutual trust and confidence
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant was not unjustly enriched.
- Category: Substantive
- Wrongful Termination
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff wrongfully terminated the defendant's employment.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Repatriation Allowance
- Salary in Lieu of Notice
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Employment Litigation
11. Industries
- Beverage
- Brewery
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step process for implying a term in fact. |
| Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of a claim in unjust enrichment. |
| Latham Scott v Credit Suisse First Boston | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an employee is not entitled to claim a bonus which was entirely discretionary in nature. |
| Leong Hin Chuee v Citra Group Pte Ltd and others | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 603 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the discretion in awarding a bonus may not be completely unfettered. |
| Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 166 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even a very broad discretion should nevertheless be exercised rationally, in bona fide and not arbitrarily or capriciously. |
| Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 8 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts will generally not intervene unless the contracting party’s exercise of such discretion is so outrageous in its defiance of reason that it can be properly categorised as perverse. |
| MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 319 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts will generally not intervene unless the contracting party’s exercise of such discretion is so outrageous in its defiance of reason that it can be properly categorised as perverse. |
| Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 219 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purpose of interpretation is to give effect to the objectively ascertained expressed intentions of the contracting parties. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that extrinsic evidence is only admissible if it satisfies the three requirements of being relevant, reasonably available to all contracting parties, and if it relates to a clear and obvious context. |
| Clark v BET plc and another | Unknown | Yes | [1997] IRLR 348 | England | Cited for the principle that if the board had capriciously or in bad faith exercised its discretion so as to determine the increase at nil and therefore to pay [the employee] no increase at all, that would have been a breach of contract. |
| Transco plc v O’Brien | Unknown | Yes | [2002] ICR 721 | England | Cited for the principle that to single out an employee on capricious grounds and refuse to offer him the same terms as were offered to the rest of the workforce is a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. |
| Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 8 | Singapore | Cited for casting some doubt on the existence of an implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the employment context. |
| Clark v Nomura International plc | Unknown | Yes | [2000] IRLR 766 | England | Cited for the test of irrationality or perversity in respect of a discretionary performance-based bonus. |
| Daniel John Brader and others v Commerzbank AG | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 81 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the test of irrationality or perversity in respect of a discretionary performance-based bonus. |
| RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413 | Singapore | Cited for the four situations which would amount to a repudiatory breach. |
| Rice v Great Yarmouth Borough Council | Unknown | Yes | [2000] All ER (D) 902 | England | Cited for the principle that even where a term in the contract expressly provides that “any breach” would entitle a party to terminate the contract at hand, such a phrase has been interpreted to mean “any repudiatory breach”. |
| Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd and others v Debenhams Properties Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2010] EWHC 1193 | England | Cited for the principle that even where a term in the contract expressly provides that “any breach” would entitle a party to terminate the contract at hand, such a phrase has been interpreted to mean “any repudiatory breach”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Relocation Obligation
- Annual Benefits Package
- Short-Term Incentive
- Repatriation Allowance
- CIPL STI
- Gross Annual Base Salary
- Wrongful Termination
- Implied Term
15.2 Keywords
- employment contract
- breach of contract
- implied terms
- relocation
- short-term incentive
- wrongful termination
- Singapore
- Carlsberg
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Employment Law | 90 |
| Implied Terms | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Termination | 60 |
| Damages | 40 |
| Formation of contract | 30 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Breach of Contract
- Contractual Interpretation
- Implied Terms