Company sues manager for leaving without serving full 6-month notice, wins S$36,000
The company sought S$36,000, or four months of the man’s monthly salary.
The man had tendered his resignation, stating that he would serve only two months of the six-month notice period. (File Photo: iStock)
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: A man who left his job as a manager at an aircraft and spacecraft servicing company served only two of his six-month notice period.
The company, Aerospace Solutions Enterprises, sued Mr Low Eng Wah for breaching his contractual obligation, claiming four months of his salary for the unserved portion of the notice period.
According to a judgment published on Monday (Jul 27), the company won and Mr Low was ordered to pay S$36,000 (US$27,860) with interest.
THE CASE
Mr Low began working at the company as a quality, environment, health and safety manager in 2023 and was paid a monthly salary of S$9,000.
His contract included clauses stating that either party can terminate service in writing or by payable salary in lieu of six months’ notice.
If he failed to complete his handover during the notice period, the company was entitled to require and compel him to stay two more weeks after the end of the notice period to complete the handover, the contract wrote.
Mr Low tendered his written resignation on Apr 1, 2025, stating that he intended to serve only two months of the six-month notice period and would leave the company on May 31, 2025.
He left on the stated date and the company sued him seeking four months’ salary in lieu of the unserved portion of his notice period.
Mr Low, who was represented by Ms Kimberly Yeo from Tito Isaac & Co, raised several defences including that he reached an agreement with the company to abridge the notice period to two months.
He said he had a call with a director of the company on Apr 1, 2025 and May 23, 2025. He also referred to an email and a WhatsApp text conversation with the director in April 2025, as well as a letter sent by the company to a third party that month.
However, District Judge Evans Ng said his reading of the correspondence was that it did not show the company agreeing to reduce the notice period or waive its entitlement to salary in lieu of the unserved portion.
As for the two phone calls, Mr Low’s own evidence was that the director was indignant and insisted he make payment, said the judge.
“The evidence therefore does not prove the alleged abridgement agreement,” said Judge Ng, adding that the company also did not make a clear and unequivocal representation that it would not enforce its rights.
Mr Low then argued that the six-month notice period was invalid because it was “unreasonably long”.
Judge Ng said reasonableness is relevant, where a contractual provision operates as a restraint of trade.
However, he said the clause here imposes no restriction on Mr Low’s activities after his employment ended. Instead, it provided a reciprocal termination mechanism under which either party may shorten the notice period by paying salary in lieu.
He found no basis for the court to review the clause on grounds of reasonableness.
Mr Low then contended that he had completed a satisfactory handover before his last working day, therefore the company suffered no loss and is precluded from obtaining a remedy.
Judge Ng said this argument assumes that the claim is for damages, which ordinarily requires proof of loss and subject to the principle of mitigation.
However, the claim here arises directly from a primary obligation in the contract of service. The company was seeking payment of a contractually stipulated sum rather than compensation for the failure to pay it.
Judge Ng said in any event, if Mr Low is regarded as having broken his contract by leaving without serving the full notice period, Section 16 of the Employment Act makes him liable to make compensation that is equal to the amount payable under another section of the Act for the unserved notice period. This sum is also S$36,000.
Having rejected all of Mr Low’s defences, Judge Ng ordered him to pay the company S$36,000 with interest at 5.33 per cent per annum from the date the originating claim was filed, until the date of the judgment.
Costs will be decided at a later date.
Source: CNA/ll(zl)
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
About The Author
