Allegations Of Whistleblowing In Wrongful Dismissal Claims

• Published date: 09 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Unfair/ Wrongful Dismissal, Employment Litigation/ Tribunals, Whistleblowing
• Law Firm: Shook Lin & Bok
• Author: Mr Probin Dass and Charles Lim

Bhuta Viral Ashok v UTI International (Singapore) Private Limited and others [2021] SGDC 109

In Bhuta Viral Ashok v UTI International (Singapore) Private Limited and others [2021] SGDC 109, the Singapore District Court rejected the plaintiff ex-employee's claim that his dismissal from employment had been a retaliation for his "whistleblowing" actions, after a detailed scrutiny of the available evidence. This case may be one of the first reported decisions where the Court examined the circumstances under which a complainant would be deemed a genuine whistleblower, such that the complainant may avail himself to the relevant contractual protections afforded to whistleblowers commonly found in the policies of large organisations.

Facts

DC/DC 2058/2017 ("DC 2058") was an action by the plaintiff ex-employee against the defendants for wrongful dismissal, defamation, and conspiracy to injure.

The Plaintiff was an ex-employee who had been employed by the Company as a "Portfolio Manager - Fixed Income" and registered as a capital markets services representative with the Monetary Authority of Singapore ("MAS"). Sometime in December 2015, the defendant company ("Company") terminated his employment following an investigation into allegations of misconduct made against the Plaintiff by several of his colleagues. Due the allegations of misconduct against the Plaintiff, the Company had to make the necessary reports to MAS in respect of the investigations and the Plaintiff's termination.

Following the termination of his employment and aggrieved by the reports to MAS, the Plaintiff embarked on a massive campaign against the Defendants and in particular, the CEO of the Company (named as the 2^nd Defendant in DC 2058). In DC 2058, the Plaintiff made bold claims that the investigations into his conduct and subsequent termination of his employment was a conspiracy instigated by the 2^nd Defendant against him (amongst other things). The crux of the Plaintiff's case was that his termination was a retaliation by the 2^nd Defendant because the Plaintiff had sent 2 allegedly "whistleblowing" emails to an independent director of the Company complaining about the 2^nd Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff further claimed that he was entitled to "whistleblower" protection under the Company's Personnel Policy.

The District Court of Singapore dismissed the Plaintiff's allegation that his dismissal had been a retaliation on the part of the 2^nd Defendant and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims...