Singapore court orders manager to pay company S$36K for leaving without serving six-month notice

SINGAPORE: A Singapore court has ordered a former manager to pay his employer S$36,000 after he resigned but served only two months of a six-month notice period required under his employment contract.

Aerospace Solutions Enterprises sued its former quality, environment, health and safety manager, Low Eng Wah, after he left the company four months earlier than his contract required. The court ruled in the company’s favour and ordered him to pay S$36,000, plus interest, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported (July 28).

The ruling shows that notice-period clauses are more than mere workplace formalities. If both sides have agreed to them in a contract, courts may enforce them unless there is a legal reason not to.

Court found no agreement to shorten the notice period

Low joined Aerospace Solutions Enterprises in 2023 on a monthly salary of S$9,000. His employment contract stated that either party could terminate the employment by giving six months’ written notice or by paying salary in lieu of serving the notice.

Low resigned on April 1, 2025, saying he intended to work only until May 31, 2025, serving just two months instead of six. The company later sued him for the remaining four months’ salary, which totalled S$36,000.

Low told the court he had reached an agreement with a company director to reduce his notice period. He pointed to phone calls, emails, WhatsApp messages and a letter sent to a third party.

District Judge Evans Ng examined the evidence and found it didn’t show that the company had agreed to shorten the notice period or give up its right to claim payment instead.

The judge also noted that Low’s own account of one phone call described the director as insisting that payment was still required.

Judge rejected arguments over the contract terms

Low also claimed that a six-month notice period was unreasonable. Judge Ng disagreed. He explained that the clause didn’t stop Low from taking another job after leaving. Instead, it gave the employee and employer the option to end the employment earlier by paying the salary instead of serving the full notice period.

The judge found no legal basis to strike down or review the clause on the grounds of its length. Low also said he had completed a proper handover before leaving, so the company had suffered no loss. The court rejected that argument too.

Judge Ng said the company wasn’t seeking damages for financial loss. It was asking for payment required under the employment contract itself.

The judge added that even if the matter were treated as a breach of contract, Section 16 of Singapore’s Employment Act would still require compensation equal to the salary for the unserved notice period. In this case, that amount was also S$36,000.

Interest awarded and costs still to be decided

After dismissing all of Low’s arguments, Judge Ng ordered him to pay S$36,000 with interest at 5.33 per cent a year from the date the claim was filed until judgment was delivered.

The court will decide legal costs at a later stage.

The judgment reinforces contractual notice obligations

Employment contracts set expectations for employers and employees. This court judgment shows that notice periods can carry real financial consequences when they aren’t followed, unless both sides agree to change them.

The judgment also draws an important line between a claim for contractual payment and a claim for damages. The employer didn’t have to prove it had suffered financial loss before seeking payment.

Before accepting a job or resigning from one, it’s worth understanding exactly what those clauses mean. A careful read today can prevent an expensive dispute tomorrow.