Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia

Mr Pawan Kumar Jagetia worked for Carlsberg Group entities from 26 September 2014, first as Deputy Managing Director of Carlsberg India Pte Ltd and then, from 1 April 2018, as Senior Vice President of Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd under a contract signed on 19 April 2018. Besides a base salary of S$410,000 and a short-term incentive, the contract gave him an annual benefits package of S$290,000, a one-time relocation allowance of S$5,000 and a repatriation allowance of S$5,000. It referred repeatedly to his being based in Singapore but did not expressly require him to move his family. On 26 June 2019 the board voted to terminate his employment with immediate effect, giving reasons including his failure to relocate.

In HC/S 114/2020 the company sought S$367,500, the benefits package and relocation allowance paid to him, relying on an implied term requiring relocation or, alternatively, unjust enrichment. He counterclaimed for wrongful termination and for an incentive of S$114,800 earned while at the Indian subsidiary. The trial Judge dismissed the company's claim and allowed both counterclaims, awarding three months' salary in lieu of notice and the repatriation allowance. The company appealed in Civil Appeal No 52 of 2022.

1. Whether the company was obliged to pay the incentive earned while Mr Jagetia was employed by the Indian subsidiary.
2. Whether the company could recover the benefits package and relocation allowance because he and his family did not relocate.
3. Whether the company was entitled to terminate his employment without notice.

On the incentive, none of the contract clauses relied on by the Judge imposed the subsidiary's payment obligation on the company: the supersession clause only said which contract governed, the seniority clause only measured length of service, and the incentive clause looked forward. The email of 17 April 2018 merely asked which entity should budget the payment.

On relocation, the court treated the key question as whether the benefits package was a discrete part of the contract. Clause 1.4 meant he was entitled to it only if he and his family relocated, or if failure to do so was beyond the parties' control. The negotiation emails showed the package was an expatriate benefit for housing, schooling and similar costs in Singapore, which he himself had sought to increase. His family stayed in India; his 70 days in Singapore living in a hotel were not relocation, and he said in May 2019 he had no intention of relocating. Applying Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd and another [2018] 1 SLR 239, there was a total failure of basis for that discrete part, so the sums were recoverable in unjust enrichment. The implied term claim was unnecessary, as there was no true gap.

On termination, clause 11.5 was not clear enough to permit dismissal for any breach. Under RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appeal [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413, no alleged breach was repudiatory, and the remedy for non-relocation was refund of the relocation sums.

The Appellate Division allowed the appeal in part. It allowed the appeal on the incentive claim, reversing the award of S$114,800, and on the relocation claim, ordering Mr Jagetia to repay S$367,500 with interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the writ. It dismissed the appeal on wrongful termination, so he kept three months' salary in lieu of notice, but reversed the award of the S$5,000 repatriation allowance. The parties were to try to agree costs.