Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia: Breach of Employment Contract & Implied Terms
Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd (CSAPL) appealed against the High Court's decision in favor of Mr. Pawan Kumar Jagetia regarding claims of breach of an implied relocation term in his employment contract, wrongful termination, and unpaid short-term incentive (STI). The Appellate Division of the High Court, comprising Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA, Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD, and Aedit Abdullah J, allowed CSAPL's appeal on the relocation and STI claims, reversing the lower court's decision, but upheld the decision regarding the wrongful termination claim. The court found that Mr. Jagetia was not entitled to relocation benefits as he did not relocate to Singapore, and CSAPL was not obligated to pay the CIPL STI. However, the court agreed that Mr. Jagetia's termination was wrongful.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding breach of employment contract. Court allowed appeal on relocation and STI claims, but not on wrongful termination claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd | Appellant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Pawan Kumar Jagetia | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Debbie Ong Siew Ling | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge of the High Court | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Jagetia was employed by various entities within the Carlsberg Group between 26 September 2014 and 26 June 2019.
- Mr. Jagetia's final appointment was as Senior Vice President (SVP) of CSAPL between 1 April 2018 and 26 June 2019.
- The CSAPL Contract provided for a gross annual base salary of S$410,000, a STI, a gross annual benefits package of S$290,000, a one-time Relocation Allowance of S$5,000, and a Repatriation Allowance of S$5,000.
- The CSAPL Contract made multiple references to Mr. Jagetia relocating and being based in Singapore, but did not explicitly state that he had to relocate with his family.
- On 26 June 2019, Mr. Jagetia's employment was terminated with immediate effect for various reasons, including the fact that he had failed to relocate to Singapore.
- Mr. Jagetia's family did not relocate to Singapore and resided in India at all material times.
- Mr. Jagetia conceded in an email dated 7 May 2019 that he had no intention of relocating to Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia, Civil Appeal No 52 of 2022, [2023] SGHC(A) 29
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Jagetia's employment with Carlsberg India Pte Ltd began. | |
| Mr. Jagetia began negotiations with CSAPL representatives. | |
| Mr. Jagetia appointed as Senior Vice President of CSAPL. | |
| The CSAPL Contract was signed. | |
| Mr. Jagetia's employment was terminated. | |
| CSAPL commenced Suit 114 against Mr. Jagetia. | |
| Mr. Jagetia filed his Defence & Counterclaim. | |
| Suit 114 of 2020 was decided by the Judge in the General Division of the High Court. | |
| Civil Appeal No 52 of 2022 was filed. | |
| Hearing of the appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that there was no repudiatory breach of the CSAPL Contract by Mr Jagetia that would have allowed CSAPL to terminate the contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to relocate
- Wrongful termination
- Implied Terms
- Outcome: The court found that there was no necessity to imply a term regarding relocation because the contract clearly provided for the basis of Mr Jagetia’s entitlement to the Annual Benefits Package.
- Category: Substantive
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that there was a total failure of basis for CSAPL’s payment of the Annual Benefits Package, entitling CSAPL to a return of this sum from Mr Jagetia.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure of basis
- Wrongful Termination
- Outcome: The court found that Clause 11.5 of the CSAPL Contract does not allow CSAPL to terminate Mr Jagetia for just any breach.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Recovery of sums paid
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
- Wrongful Termination
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Contract Disputes
- Employment Disputes
11. Industries
- Brewery
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 74 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal. |
| Leiman, Ricardo v Noble Resources | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 386 | Singapore | Cited for principles of contractual interpretation. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for principles of admissibility of extrinsic evidence in contractual interpretation. |
| 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 and the concept of failure of basis. |
| Koon Seng Construction Pte Ld v Chenab Contractor Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 375 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court is entitled to make reasonable inferences of fact. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court is entitled to make reasonable inferences of fact. |
| Max Media FZ LLC v Nimbus Media Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 677 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that restitutionary principles are ordinarily supplemental to the law of contract. |
| 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 terms into a contract. |
| RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413 | Singapore | Cited for the four situations that would amount to a repudiatory breach. |
| Phosagro Asia Pte Ltd v Piattchanine, Iouri | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1052 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of a termination clause in an employment contract. |
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
- Relocation Allowance
- Repatriation Allowance
- Short-Term Incentive
- Wrongful Termination
- Failure of Basis
- Implied Term
15.2 Keywords
- employment contract
- relocation
- wrongful termination
- unjust enrichment
- Singapore
- Carlsberg
- Jagetia
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Employment Contract
- Contractual Interpretation
- Unjust Enrichment
- Wrongful Termination