1 The plaintiff`s claim in these proceedings is for damages for wrongful dismissal.

2 The facts which are not in dispute are these. The plaintiff is a professional engineer. He graduated from the Singapore Polytechnic in 1963 and prior to his employment by the defendant company he worked as technical manager with Jardines and later as sales engineer with the General Electric Company. The defendant company which is incorporated in America has an office in Singapore and has business interests in other parts of South East Asia.

3 In September 1973 the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company as manager of the defendant company`s Singapore office. On the evening of 16 October 1975 Mr Frank O`Callaghan, the defendant company`s manager for the Far East region called on the plaintiff. He went into the office occupied by the plaintiff and there was some conversation between the plaintiff and O`Callaghan the exact nature of which is in dispute but the next morning, the plaintiff wrote the following letter to O`Callaghan:

4 I requested Mr Kwan and Miss HN Low to mail to me the list of books AA-Sing has ordered and upon checking, I will endeavour to return whatever are in my possession. I pointed out that many of the books, I have not used and should still be in AA-Sing`s premises. The fact that these books cannot be located does not mean I have used them. Other people in the premises could also found use of them. Regarding some competitive filter brochures I may have had from time to time, these were on loan to me from my personal friends, which I returned, therefore AAF has no claim on these.

5 I am awaiting your letter acknowledging my period of service in AA-Sing, which you promised me and trust this is forthcoming soon.

6 I still regard Mr O`Callaghan as a fair and honest person and look forward to receive the above sum as fair settlement. Thanking you.

7 On the evening of 16 October 1975 the plaintiff was paid $5,114 by O`Callaghan. This sum according to the defence was made up as follows:

8 The defendant company maintains that the plaintiff having resigned from his appointment on 16 October 1975 and having been paid on that day all that was due to him, the plaintiff`s claim should be dismissed with costs.

9 The plaintiff on the other hand alleges that he did not resign; that he was dismissed and that the termination of his employment amounts to wrongful dismissal in that he was not given reasonable notice and he claims the sum of $10,977 as damages:

10 The real issue in this case is whether or not the plaintiff resigned from his employment and in order to determine this issue it is necessary to ascertain what exactly took place in the plaintiff`s office on the evening of 16 October 1975 when O`Callaghan called on him.

11 The plaintiff`s version in this. O`Callaghan came into his office and said, "Stanley, I have to ask you for your resignation." He asked for reasons, but O`Callaghan refused to disclose any reason. O`Callaghan then handed him an envelope and said, "Stanley, I think you will find everything there." Plaintiff maintains that he was shocked. He pleaded with O`Callaghan but to no avail. He was told to go home in the company`s car and to return it to the company`s service station the next day. The plaintiff claims that he never had any intention of resigning; that the so called resignation was a dismissal forced upon him and that in the letter he wrote the next morning he wrongly used the word `resignation` instead of `termination of employment`. He had written that letter in order to praise O`Callaghan and get a good testimonial from him.

12 O`Callaghan on the other hand states that he does not recollect asking plaintiff for his resignation. He says that he mentioned to the plaintiff that it was better for him to look for other work for which he was more suited than his capacity as manager of the defendant company. O`Callaghan admits that the plaintiff did ask him to explain specifically what were the problems and that he declined to do so. He says that he declined to do so because he wanted to give the plaintiff the opportunity to resign. He admits that if the plaintiff had not resigned he would have dismissed him.

13 O`Callaghan`s intention to dismiss the plaintiff is also quite apparent from the fact that when he entered the plaintiff`s room he had with him an envelope containing $5,114 together with a statement showing how this sum was made up and he eventually handed this envelope to the plaintiff and left his room.

14 I accept the plaintiff`s version. I have no doubt at all that when O`Callaghan asked for the plaintiff`s resignation, he was in effect dismissing the plaintiff from his appointment. It was merely a polite way of telling the plaintiff that he was being dismissed. He had gone into the plaintiff`s office with his mind made up to dismiss him and had with him an envelope containing a sum of money which he thought was all that the plaintiff was entitled to.

15 In my judgment, on the evidence in this case, it would be quite erroneous on my part to hold that the plaintiff resigned on his own volition. There was quite clearly pressure on him. His resignation was in fact demanded. O`Callaghan admits that he gave no reason although the plaintiff did ask him to specify what the problem was. As no reason was given, the plaintiff had no reason to resign.

16 A resignation obtained under compulsion is no resignation in law. This is clear from the decision in Stephenson v London Joint Stock Bank Ltd (1902) 19 TLR 138; 20 TLR 8, CA. In that case, it appeared that the plaintiff entered the service of the bank as clerk on 14 February 1879, at which time he signed a form of rules and regulations for granting retiring allowances to the officers of the bank. The second rule provided that such officer retiring with the consent of the directors should receive an allowance at the rate of one-third of the annual amount of his salary at the time he so retired. Under the fifth rule no retiring allowance whatever was to be granted to any officer who was dismissed from the service of the bank. In October 1899, the plaintiff endorsed a promissory note which was made by a Mr Horace Sedger. This fact came to the knowledge of the defendants owing to the note being discounted at one of the branch banks of the London Joint Stock Bank, and thereupon the defendants called upon the plaintiff for an explanation. The plaintiff stated that he had been promised the sum of £25 by Mr Horace Sedger for endorsing the note, and that he was unaware that Mr Sedger was other than a person of sound financial position. On 16 November 1899, the plaintiff received a letter from the secretary to the bank in regard to the matter of the promissory note. The letter contained the words `you are required to resign your appointment to the bank,` and on 20 November the plaintiff wrote to the secretary resigning his appointment.

17 The plaintiff then sought to obtain a declaration that he was entitled to a pension from the bank on retiring from his position as clerk. At the trial before Wright J counsel for the plaintiff contended that his resignation in the circumstances was `with the consent of the directors` and that the plaintiff was not dismissed from his appointment, because requiring a person to resign was not the same as dismissing him. Wright J found for the defendant bank. In giving judgment he said that the question to be decided was not an easy one. He felt that there was great force in counsel`s contention that the plaintiff had not been dismissed. In official life it was open to employers to invite a man to retire, to require him to retire, or to dismiss him. He was doubtful if the facts of the present case amounted to dismissal. But the real question was whether or not the plaintiff had brought himself within the words `retiring with the consent of the directors`. The words in the letter from the secretary were `you are required` and he thought it would be an abuse of language to say that a man who retired in that way, under compulsion, did it with the consent of the directors.

18 The plaintiff appealed. In the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment said, "Mr Wright J had come to a perfectly correct decision. They had to look at the whole of the facts, and, doing so, there could be no doubt but that the plaintiff was dismissed. The use of polite instead of pre-emptory language did not alter the fact". The Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy concurred.

19 On the facts of the present case, I hold that the plaintiff was dismissed from his employment with the defendant company. The next question is, was he given adequate notice? Counsel for the defendant company concedes that in the circumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff was a professional engineer and was employed as manager of the defendant company`s Singapore office, three months` notice could be considered a reasonable notice for the purpose of terminating his services. Had the defendant company given the plaintiff three months` notice on 16 October 1975, he would have become entitled to a bonus of one month`s salary under the terms of his contract of service. In the result the plaintiff succeeds in his claim of $10,977 subject to the requisite CPF deductions from the amount of the three months` salary and the bonus. There will be judgment for the plaintiff for the sum found due after the said deductions. The defendant company will also pay the plaintiff the costs of this action as taxed on the High Court scale.

20 Claim allowed.