Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading: Breach of Employment Contract & Tort Claims

Dong Wei appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss his claims against Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and Lim Ming Way for breach of his employment contract and various torts. Dong Wei alleged wrongful suspension, mismanagement of investigation, and failure to protect his reputation, leading to his termination and inability to find comparable employment. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Dong Wei did not suffer legally recoverable losses and failed to establish the alleged wrongs on the facts.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in its entirety

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed. Dong Wei's claims against Shell Eastern for breach of contract and torts, including conspiracy and malicious falsehood, were rejected.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Dong WeiAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) LtdRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Lim Ming WayRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
See Kee OonJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Choo Zheng XiPeter Low & Choo LLC
Wong Thai YongPeter Low & Choo LLC
Yuen Ai Zhen CarolPeter Low & Choo LLC
Goh Seow HuiBird & Bird ATMD LLP
Sharmaine Chan Sze MinBird & Bird ATMD LLP

4. Facts

  1. Dong Wei was employed by Shell Eastern from 2006 until his termination on 10 January 2018.
  2. At the time of termination, Dong Wei held the position of Senior Freight Trader.
  3. Lim Ming Way was Dong Wei’s line manager.
  4. On 29 September 2017, Dong Wei made a phone call to Jason Balota, a gas oil trader with Vitol Asia Pte Ltd.
  5. Ben Jones, Vitol’s chartering manager, thought that Dong Wei had asked Mr Balota to charter a cheaper ship for the cargo.
  6. On 12 October 2017, Mr Jones and Mr Lim met in person regarding the Appellant’s call with Mr Balota.
  7. On 12 December 2017, Platts published an article stating that Shell Eastern had been investigating claims of unethical dealings.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No 14 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 8

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dong Wei employed by Shell Eastern
Shell Eastern investigated allegation of favouritism to First Fleet
Shell Eastern investigated allegation of receiving gifts from First Fleet
Dong Wei issued a warning for failing to disclose close friendship with an employee of First Fleet
Dong Wei made a phone call to Jason Balota
Lim Ming Way met with Ben Jones regarding Dong Wei’s call with Jason Balota
Investigation commenced into complaints against Dong Wei
Dong Wei interviewed by Sumitra Balasundaram
Dong Wei placed on mandatory leave with salary
Ms Balasundaram interviewed individuals relevant to the investigation
Ms Balasundaram interviewed individuals relevant to the investigation
Ms Balasundaram completed investigation and released report
S&P Global Platts contacted Shell Eastern regarding investigation rumours
Platts published an article stating that Shell Eastern had been investigating claims of unethical dealings
Dong Wei informed that his employment would be terminated immediately with pay in lieu of notice
Dong Wei sued the respondents to recover damages
Appeal heard
Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Shell Eastern did not breach the contract of employment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Wrongful suspension
      • Mismanagement of investigation
      • Failure to disclose outcome of investigation
      • Failure to protect confidentiality of investigation
      • Arbitrary, capricious and/or bad faith termination
  2. Inducement of Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Lim did not induce Shell Eastern to breach the contract of employment.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Malicious Falsehood
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Lim did not act with malicious intent.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no unlawful means conspiracy to cause harm to the Appellant.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that Shell Eastern was not negligent in failing to protect the confidence of the investigation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to protect confidence of investigation
  6. Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence
    • Outcome: The court stated that the status of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence has not been clearly settled in Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for wrongful suspension
  2. Cash bonuses and share options
  3. Damages for reputational damage

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Inducement of Breach of Contract
  • Malicious Falsehood
  • Conspiracy
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Employment Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Energy
  • Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 123SingaporeSets out the background facts of the case at first instance.
Alexander Proudfoot Productivity Services Co S’pore Pte Ltd v Sim Hua Ngee AlvinCourt of AppealYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 933SingaporeCited for the principle of the minimum legal obligation rule in wrongful termination cases.
Wong Sung Boon v Fuji Xerox Singapore Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 24SingaporeCited for the principle of the minimum legal obligation rule in wrongful termination cases.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301Court of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 866SingaporeCited for the elements of the tort of malicious falsehood.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 407SingaporeCited for the mental element required for the tort of inducing a breach of contract.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 655SingaporeCited for restating the mental element for the tort of inducing a breach of contract.
Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 76SingaporeCited for the requirements for the presumption of res ipsa loquitur to apply.
Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 2 SLR 577SingaporeCited as authority for the acceptance of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence into Singapore law.
Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 357SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, but the current judgment finds that it does not support the proposition that the court had accepted the implied term into Singapore law.
Wong Wei Leong Edward and another v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd and another suitHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 352SingaporeAlluded to in relation to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Brader Daniel John and others v Commerzbank AGHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 81SingaporeAlluded to in relation to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Tullett Prebon (Singapore) Ltd and another v Chua Leong Chuan Simon and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 344SingaporeAlluded to in relation to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Leong Hin Chuee v Citra Group Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 603SingaporeAlluded to in relation to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Arul Chandran v Gartshore and othersHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 436SingaporeAlluded to in relation to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Malik and Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in Compulsory Liquidation)House of LordsYes[1998] AC 20United KingdomClassic formulation of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v BarkerFederal Court of AustraliaYes(2013) 214 FCR 450AustraliaDiscussed in relation to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v BarkerHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2014) 312 ALR 356AustraliaHeld that the implied term of mutual trust and confidence did not form a part of Australian employment law.
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v SharpEnglish Court of AppealYes[1978] QB 761United KingdomPreferred to answer the question of when an employee would be so entitled to terminate by reference to the employer’s repudiatory breach.
The One Suites Pte Ltd v Pacific Motor Credit (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 695SingaporeObserved that the law in this particular sphere continues to be in a state of flux.
Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 166SingaporeHeld that an employer’s contractual discretion to determine whether an employee was entitled to receive severance payments and benefits was subject to the requirements of rationality, good faith, and consistency with the contractual purpose of the discretion.
Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and anotherUK Supreme CourtYes[2015] 1 WLR 1661United KingdomFound that the second defendant was obliged to undertake its investigations, and thus reach its conclusion on the cause of death, in good faith, without being arbitrary, capricious, or irrational in the sense used when reviewing decisions of public authorities.
MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 319SingaporeThe discretion pertained to one contracting party’s ability to decide its own remuneration or commission for providing trade finance services.
Ludgate Insurance Co Ltd v CitibankN/AYes[1998] Lloyd’s Rep IP 221N/AObserved that the courts will not generally 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.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment Rights Act 1996United Kingdom
Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Freight Trader
  • Platts Article
  • Minimum Legal Obligation Rule
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur
  • Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • Unfair Dismissal
  • Termination with Pay in Lieu of Notice

15.2 Keywords

  • employment contract
  • breach of contract
  • wrongful termination
  • malicious falsehood
  • conspiracy
  • negligence
  • reputational damage
  • Singapore
  • Shell Eastern
  • Dong Wei

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Employment Law95
Breach of Contract70
Disciplinary Procedures60
Torts60
Inducement of Breach of Contract50
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means40
Malicious Falsehood40
Negligence30
Civil Procedure20

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law