Daniel Seng Hock Chye v Denso International Asia Pte Ltd

Mr Daniel Seng Hock Chye was employed by Denso International Asia Pte Ltd under a contract made around May 2005. His employment was terminated on 1 October 2024 after about 19 years of service, and he was paid salary in lieu of notice. In Originating Claim No 1062 of 2025 he sued for wrongful dismissal. He alleged that the termination was carried out in bad faith as a disguised retrenchment to deprive him of retrenchment benefits, that it was contrary to the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, and that the company's later criticisms of his performance were false. He said he suffered an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and claimed damages for psychiatric injury, distress, humiliation and loss of reputation.

The company applied in Summons No 701 of 2026 to strike out the whole statement of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that striking out was in the interests of justice.

1. Whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action for wrongful dismissal or retrenchment benefits
2. Whether the alleged bad faith termination could be framed as a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence
3. Whether the Tripartite Guidelines could ground a civil claim
4. Whether the claims for psychiatric harm, distress, humiliation and loss of reputation were sustainable

The bar for striking out is high, and pleaded facts are assumed true. Even so, the claim pleaded no legal basis for calling the termination wrongful: no breached contractual term, statutory provision or duty was identified, and the phrase "without just cause or excuse" echoed the Employment Act route that runs through the Employment Claims Tribunal. That defect could not be cured by particulars.

No contractual or statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits was pleaded, so the disguised retrenchment theory collapsed; the presumption in Noor Mohamed bin Mumtaz Shah v Apollo Enterprises Ltd (trading as Apollo Hotel Singapore) [2000] 1 SLR(R) 670 applies only where such an entitlement exists. The employee conceded that a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, as recognised in Prashant Mudgal v SAP Asia Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 15, was not pleaded and sought leave to amend. The assistant registrar held amendment would not help. That case rejected any implied duty not to terminate in bad faith and turned on deceptive pre-termination conduct, whereas this was a contractual termination with pay in lieu of notice, and labelling it a dismissal rather than a redundancy was not intolerable or wholly unacceptable conduct.

The Tripartite Guidelines were administrative guidance for the Employment Claims Tribunal and created no civil cause of action, and no specific guideline was identified in any event. The psychiatric harm claim pleaded neither negligence nor the elements of the Wilkinson v Downton tort, nor any vulnerability making harm foreseeable. Damages for distress, humiliation and reputation for the manner of dismissal are barred by the Addis principle, and the narrow Malik exception did not apply.

The claim was therefore legally unsustainable, and also factually doubtful given that the medical report was not disclosed, so striking out was in the interests of justice.

Assistant Registrar Ramu Miyapan allowed the company's application and struck out the statement of claim in its entirety, finding both grounds made out. Costs were to be heard separately.