Dabbs v AAM Advisory: Wrongful Termination, Unpaid Commissions, and Illegality in Employment Contract

Matthew Edward Dabbs sued AAM Advisory Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Originating Claim No 124 of 2022, alleging wrongful termination of his employment and seeking unpaid commissions. AAM Advisory counterclaimed for overpayment of bonus and commissions. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Wong Li Kok, Alex, found that AAM Advisory validly terminated Dabbs' employment due to gross misconduct and breach of confidentiality. The court dismissed Dabbs' claims and allowed AAM Advisory's counterclaim in part, ordering Dabbs to pay $85,503.69 after set-off.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Defendant on wrongful termination claim; Counterclaim allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Claimant Matthew Dabbs sued AAM Advisory for wrongful termination and unpaid commissions. The court found the termination justified and addressed counterclaims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Dabbs, Matthew EdwardClaimantIndividualClaim DismissedLost
AAM Advisory Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Wong Li Kok, AlexJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o NarayananNicholas & Tan Partnership LLP
Tan Whei Mien JoyWongPartnership LLP
Ho Wei JieWongPartnership LLP
Thio Li Fong Michelle TheresaWongPartnership LLP
Kong Pek Yoke (Jiang Biyu)WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Claimant was a former financial advisor, Executive Director, and CEO of the defendant.
  2. Claimant's employment was governed by the Advisor Agreement and the Executive Service Agreement.
  3. Defendant commenced an internal investigation against the claimant based on rumours of a team move to a competitor.
  4. Investigation found the claimant sent confidential client information to his personal email and offensive emails to staff.
  5. Claimant's employment was summarily terminated on 25 July 2019.
  6. Defendant counterclaimed for overpaid bonus and commissions.
  7. Claimant stored illicit materials and conducted sexually inappropriate searches on his work desktop.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Dabbs, Matthew Edward v AAM Advisory Pte Ltd, Originating Claim No 124 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 260

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Advisor Agreement entered between Dabbs and AAM Advisory.
Executive Service Agreement entered between Dabbs and AAM Advisory.
Claimant received a draft CEO performance scorecard by way of an e-mail.
Claimant received the Performance Scorecard.
Defendant heard rumours that the claimant was plotting to engineer a team move to St James’s Place.
Ms Beresford emailed and invited the claimant to attend a disciplinary hearing on 26 June 2019.
Claimant replied with a letter of resignation and informed Ms Beresford that he was unavailable to attend the Disciplinary Hearing.
Disciplinary Hearing took place in the absence of the claimant.
Claimant appealed against the outcome of the Disciplinary Hearing.
Claimant’s appeal hearing took place.
Claimant’s employment was summarily terminated.
Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1) filed.
Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No. 2) filed.
Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief of Mr Matthew Edward Dabbs filed.
First affidavit of Ms Donna Louise Beresford filed.
First affidavit of Mr Joly Scott Adam Hemuss filed.
First affidavit of Lee Jun Hao Benjamin filed.
First affidavit of Mr Gino Jose Bello filed.
Defendant’s Opening Statement filed.
Claimant’s Opening Statement filed.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Defendant’s Lead Counsel’s Statement filed.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Defendant’s Closing Submissions filed.
Claimant’s Closing Submissions filed.
Claimant’s Reply Submissions filed.
Defendant’s Reply Closing Submissions filed.
Minute Sheet date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Wrongful Termination
    • Outcome: The court held that the termination was valid due to the claimant's gross misconduct and breach of confidentiality obligations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Gross misconduct
      • Breach of confidentiality
      • Breach of implied term of mutual trust and confidence
      • Rules of natural justice
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413
      • [2016] 5 SLR 1052
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of contract by the defendant in failing to provide consent or buy the claimant's client bank.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Contractual terms
      • Illegality and public policy
      • Termination
  3. Right of Set-Off
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant was entitled to set off the sums in the Lapsed Reserve Account against the Excess Bonus and Overpaid Commissions.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Illegality
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant’s counterclaim to recover the Excess Bonus is not barred by illegality.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the ESA was wrongfully terminated
  2. Payment of three months’ salary
  3. Payment of commissions
  4. Account of all commissions due

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Wrongful Termination

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Employment Litigation

11. Industries

  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 413SingaporeCited for the principle that an innocent party is entitled to terminate a contract where the contract clearly provides for such a right in the event of certain events occurring.
Phosagro Asia Pte Ltd v Piattchanine, IouriCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 1052SingaporeCited for the principle that where an employment contract entitles the employer to summarily terminate employment for 'serious misconduct', the court should look to common law principles relating to repudiatory breach.
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Company v AnsellCourt of AppealYes(1888) 39 Ch D 339England and WalesCited for the principle that an employer is entitled to invoke an employee's wrongful conduct as a defense to a wrongful dismissal claim, even if the employer did not rely on that misconduct at the time of dismissal because he did not know about it.
Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Comfort Resources Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 602SingaporeCited for the principle that an innocent party will not be entitled to rely on a ground not raised at the time of termination if the party in breach could have rectified the situation had it been afforded the opportunity to do so.
C&S Associates UK Ltd v Enterprise Insurance Company plcHigh Court of JusticeYes[2015] EWHC 3757 (Comm)England and WalesCited to explain the qualification to the Boston Deep Sea Fishing principle, applying only to anticipatory breaches or situations where steps could have been taken to avoid the party being in breach altogether.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422SingaporeCited for the general rule that parties are bound by their pleadings, and the court is precluded from deciding on a matter that the parties have not put into issue.
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029SingaporeCited for the principle that extrinsic evidence sought to be admitted for the purpose of contractual interpretation must be relevant, reasonably available to all the contracting parties, and relate to a clear or obvious context.
Aldabe Fermin v Standard Chartered BankHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 722SingaporeCited as an example of a case where disciplinary procedures and group discipline policy were incorporated into the employment contract.
Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2023] 3 SLR 922SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the letter of appointment was interpreted as a clause obliging the employee to comply with the company’s policies, but not obliging the employer to comply with the policies.
Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2020] 2 SLR 386SingaporeCited for the principle that an employer could terminate an employment contract at any time, and for any reason or for none, and any right to a hearing could only arise if provided for in the employment contract.
Vasudevan Pillai and another v City Council of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[1968-1970] SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no automatic right in an employment relationship for the employee to be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on dismissal.
Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore Airlines LtdHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 924SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no automatic right in an employment relationship for the employee to be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on dismissal.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 345SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no automatic right in an employment relationship for the employee to be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on dismissal.
BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and another v Sumit GroverHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHC 206SingaporeCited for the observation that it remains unsettled law whether employment contracts contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence under Singapore law.
Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and anotherAppellate Division of the High CourtYes[2022] 1 SLR 1318SingaporeCited for the observation that while the implied term of mutual trust and confidence was accepted by this court in various cases, the Court of Appeal in Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 357 did not formally endorse this implied term.
Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 357SingaporeCited as a case where the Court of Appeal did not formally endorse the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Chua Choon Cheng and others v Allgreen Properties Ltd and another appealHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 724SingaporeCited for the principle that a term implied in law is concerned with 'considerations of fairness and policy' and should amount to 'a necessary incident of a definable category of contractual relationship'.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v BarkerHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2014) 312 ALR 356AustraliaCited for the principle that the implication of such a term may be 'a step beyond the legitimate law-making function of the courts'.
Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 2 SLR 577SingaporeCited for the principle that the content of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence is 'not … capable of precise definition' and can 'vary greatly depending on the facts in each case'.
Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 927SingaporeCited for the principle that once implied, such terms would be implied in all future contracts of that particular type.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited for the principle that the first step in the implication of terms in fact is that there must be a true gap in the contract because the parties did not contemplate that gap in the contract.
Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak HengCourt of AppealYes[2016] 2 SLR 464SingaporeCited for the principle that where a party has custody of a fund which it is obliged to administer for the benefit of another, equity policies the due administration of the funds by holding the fiduciary to account.
Nottingham University v FishelEmployment Appeal TribunalYes[2000] IRLR 471United KingdomCited for the principle that the essence of the employment relationship is a contractual one and 'is not typically fiduciary at all'.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew StewartHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 308SingaporeCited for the principle that the essence of the employment relationship is a contractual one and 'is not typically fiduciary at all'.
Lalwani Shalini Gobind and another v Lalwani Ashok BherumalHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 90SingaporeCited for the principle that the taking of accounts arises generally in custodial fiduciary relationships, such as vis-à-vis trustees, executors, or custodial agents.
eSys Technologies Pte Ltd v nTan Corporate Advisory Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 136SingaporeCited as a case on implied contractual terms, where the court took into account the admission by the defendant consultancy firm that it had a 'minimum obligation' to explain to clients how time costs are calculated.
Fairview Developments Pte Ltd v Ong & Ong Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 318SingaporeCited for the principle that unless there is a specific provision which permits it, a party cannot unilaterally vary the terms of a contract.
Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 363SingaporeCited for the principle that in determining whether a contract is tainted with illegality, the first question is whether the contract is prohibited under a statutory provision and/or under one of the established heads of common law public policy.
Inzign Pte Ltd v Associated Spring Asia Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 147SingaporeCited for the principle that a defendant is entitled to rely on its claim both as a defence of set-off against the claimant’s claim as well as a counterclaim, provided that the claim relates to 'debts or liquidated demands due between the same parties in the same right'.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act 1893Singapore
Films ActSingapore
Financial Advisers Act 2001Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Summary dismissal
  • Gross misconduct
  • Confidential information
  • Lapsed Reserve Account
  • Excess Bonus
  • Overpaid Commissions
  • Performance Scorecard
  • Disciplinary Hearing
  • Appeal Hearing

15.2 Keywords

  • wrongful termination
  • employment contract
  • unpaid commissions
  • financial advisor
  • summary dismissal
  • breach of contract
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contracts80
Breach of Contract75
Employment Law75
Commercial Disputes30
Natural justice20
Civil Litigation20
Costs10
Civil Practice10
Administrative Law5

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure