Employment 2025

SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ian Lim, Nicholas Ngo, Angela Chai and Stasia Ong, TSMP Law Corporation

ance between employers’ and employees’ competing interests. In BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and GFI Group Pte Ltd v Sumit Grover [2024] SGHC 206 ( BGC Part- ners ), a former employee countersued his employers for, amongst other things, alleged unpaid bonuses under a discretionary bonus plan. Although the for - mer employee was unsuccessful, the court observed that an employer’s discretion in such situations is constrained by “concepts of honesty, good faith, and genuineness, and the need for the absence of arbi - trariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality”. There is, however, no licence afforded to disgruntled employees who simply believe that a bonus (or the lack of one) is inadequate or unacceptable. The court emphasised that it “will not intervene in the exercise of such discretion lightly”, doing so only where the exer - cise of the employer’s discretion is “so outrageous in its defiance of reason that it can be properly catego - rised as perverse”. Claims Upon Claims: An Employee’s Playbook? It would be convenient for businesses if all disputes could be resolved at the Employment Claims Tri - bunals (ECT), where wrongful dismissal and salary- related claims are capped at SGD20,000 per claim (or SGD30,000 with union assistance). A recent first instance decision, however, suggests that even after a completed ECT claim, employees may still have scope to pursue additional claims in the Singapore courts. In Goh Hui En Rebecca v IG Asia Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 20 ( Rebecca Goh ), a former employee was terminated for alleged “serious misconduct”, prompt - ing the employer to file a misconduct report with the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The former employee commenced ECT proceedings seeking salary in lieu of notice. She largely succeeded – in allowing her claim, the ECT also determined that the employer had failed to substantiate the miscon - duct allegations. Armed with the ECT victory and a finding that her alleged misconduct was unsubstantiated, the employ - ee proceeded to initiate High Court proceedings,

claiming unpaid sales commissions, damages for defamation in relation to the misconduct report, and negligence regarding the filing of that report. The former employer sought to strike out her claims, contending that she had improperly bifurcated her claims and was abusing the court’s process. How - ever, the High Court Assistant Registrar disagreed, thereby validating the former employee’s two-stage strategy, for now. Absent a contrary decision from a higher court or judge, this case may serve as a template for employ - ees seeking to pursue claims beyond the ECT’s juris - dictional limits. Businesses should therefore recognise that ECT proceedings – despite their lower monetary limits – remain a significant matter that must be prop - erly addressed and defended. Scrutiny Over Restrictive Covenants A pair of decisions released in 2024 demonstrate that enforcing non-competition provisions against employ - ees continues to be not straightforward. They serve as a stark reminder to businesses that the mere existence of such a provision does not guarantee enforceability. In Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 ( Shopee ), the former employer sought to prevent its senior executive from joining ByteDance, relying on a 12-month non-competition restriction for an injunction to prohibit the senior executive from seeking or accepting employment with any of Shop - ee’s competitors in eight countries. The High Court refused to enforce the restriction, cit - ing established law that a restrictive covenant must be directed at protecting a legitimate proprietary interest. Given that interests in trade secrets and confidential information were already protected by a separate con - fidentiality clause, the employer needed to identify another interest that the non-competition restriction was intended to protect. Unfortunately, the former employer was unable to do so. Reasonableness remains the other requirement for enforcing a restrictive covenant. In that case, the court was notably unconvinced by the former employer’s argument that the executive’s participation in regional

538 CHAMBERS.COM