Andrew Vigar v XL Insurance Company Se Singapore Branch

Mr Andrew Vigar has been employed by XL Insurance Company SE Singapore Branch, part of the AXA group, since 2000 and remained in its employment at the time of the hearing. In 2018 the company investigated harassment allegations made against him by an employee of a related Japanese entity who reported to him. He alleges he was told in September 2018 that he had been found guilty. Proceedings in the Tokyo District Court over the same allegations were dismissed on 14 February 2023. He then asked AXA XL's internal audit department to look into how the 2018 investigation had been handled, and his complaints were not upheld.

In HC/OC 539/2024 he sued the company, alleging breaches of an implied term of mutual trust and confidence, an implied term that it would comply with its internal policies, and an implied duty to exercise its discretion reasonably in awarding bonuses and salary increments between 2018 and 2023. He also claimed for lost chances of career opportunities. The company denied the claims and applied in HC/SUM 3301/2024 to strike out the suit in full. After a first hearing, the Assistant Registrar found the original pleadings defective and ordered amendments. The company then pressed the striking out against the amended pleadings.

1. Whether the employment contract arguably contained an implied term of mutual trust and confidence covering the duties pleaded, including compliance with internal company policies.
2. Whether a term obliging the employer to comply with its internal policies could be implied in fact.
3. Whether the claims for loss of chance of career opportunities were legally sustainable.
4. Whether the claim that the employer exercised its discretion over bonuses and increments unreasonably should be struck out.

Whether Singapore law recognises an implied term of mutual trust and confidence remains unsettled, so its existence was at least arguable. But on its scope, the Assistant Registrar was bound by the High Court's decision in Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd [2023] 3 SLR 922, which rejected an implied duty to comply with all internal policies because of the uncertainty it would create. The case could not be distinguished. The term extends to a minimum content of fairness in investigations, but not to broader duties to investigate promptly and thoroughly, protect psychological safety, or acknowledge errors and compensate after the Tokyo decision; those would intrude on the employer's management of its affairs. An employee's reasonable expectation cannot by itself create a contractual obligation.

As the facts were not disputed, the implied-in-fact term was decided at this stage. The employee handbook said it was not a contract, the term was at most desirable rather than necessary for business efficacy, and given its breadth the parties would not have said 'Oh, of course!'.

On loss of chance, an employer cannot be liable for depriving an employee of an outcome it was never obliged to provide; the doctrine applies to chances depending on third parties. Whether the related entities were independent or the employer's agents was for trial. On bonuses, even absolute discretion must not be exercised irrationally, capriciously or arbitrarily, and the many disputed factual allegations could not be called fanciful.

Assistant Registrar Leo Zhi Wei struck out the claim in part. The claims based on an implied duty to comply with internal company policies, and most of the pleaded duties under the trust and confidence term, were struck out, leaving only the claim that the 2018 investigation and the internal audit were not conducted fairly. Loss of chance claims tied to opportunities from the employer were struck out; claims concerning opportunities offered by related third parties could proceed, as amended. The bonus and increment claims were not struck out. Costs of S$22,000 (all in) were awarded to the company.