...

Our Notable Cases

Y T vs Raizzin Pte. Ltd

REPRESENTED BY

picture of Siraj

Siraj Shaik Aziz
Email: siraj@silvesterlegal.com

picture of walter alexander

Walter Alexander
Email: walter.alexander@silvesterlegal.com

WHAT WE ACHIEVED

“Mr Siraj and Mr Alexander successfully defended their client, a Japanese digital web business, against the Plaintiff’s claim for the sum of S$153,872.17 (based on an alleged commission scheme arrangement), plus S$$1,671.94 (Alleged Forced Expense) and medical fees of $647.35. The Court ultimately awarded the Plaintiff a nominal sum of $50.00 with interest against the Defendant, which was a very substantial decrease from the initial claim.”

CASE SUMMARY

[Employment Agreement – Claims on basis of Slack Chat, Parol Evidence Rule, S.94 Evidence Act]


The Plaintiff was a Japanese National who was working as a Senior Marketing executive in defendant’s company from February 2018 and as a Marketing Executive from February 2020 to 29 May 2020. Plaintiff claimed an amount of S$153,872.17 under an alleged Commission Scheme Agreement entered into on 13 March 2018. In relation to the “Alleged Commission Agreement”, the Plaintiff’s case was that this was evidenced by a Slack Chat conversation.

 

One of the most crucial issues considered by the Court was whether the Alleged Commission Scheme Agreement was provable in light of
the parol evidence rule and the entire agreement clause. The Plaintiff relied on s 94(b), (c) and (f) of the Evidence Act to adduce proof of the Alleged Commission Scheme Agreement as evidenced by the Slack Chat of 13 March 2018. The argument was dismissed by the Court.

 

Counsel for the Defendant argued that Under s 93 of the Evidence Act, no evidence may be given in proof of the terms of the Employment Agreement except the written contract itself, unless one of the exceptions in s 94 Evidence Act applied. The Defendant proved that no provision of s.94 applies in this case. The Defendant also argued that an entire agreement clause in the Employment Agreement of the Plaintiff applied.

 

Based on the proof and arguments, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs claim for the the Outstanding Commission Payments and the Forced Expenses. The Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim for the Medical Expenses, but capped it at $50.00.