Singapore’s High Court has awarded an energy brokerage firm S$131,745.27 after it sought more than S$1.7 million from a former employee who resigned before the end of a fixed-term employment period.
In Poten & Partners Pte Ltd v Lee Won Sang ([2026] SGHC 208), decided on 7 October 2026, the court examined the enforceability of a contractual notice clause, the employer’s claim for lost profits and salary paid to the employee after his departure.
The ruling offers a reminder for HR teams that employment contracts need clear, workable termination provisions and that claims for financial losses must be supported by evidence.
How the Employment Contract Dispute Began
Lee Won Sang worked as a senior liquefied petroleum gas broker at Poten & Partners, an energy and shipping brokerage affiliated with BGC Partners.
In February 2025, he signed an amendment to his employment contract that set an initial employment period ending on 15 May 2029. On 4 April 2025, just 39 days after signing the amendment, he resigned with immediate effect and did not return to work.
The company argued that the contract required him to give notice that could not expire before the end of the initial employment period. It therefore claimed more than S$1.7 million in payment in lieu of notice (PILON), calculated by reference to the remaining contract term.
Poten also pursued a separate claim for lost profits and sought to recover salary paid for April and May 2025, despite the employee having stopped working in April.
Why the Court Rejected the Full Notice Claim
The dispute centred on a clause requiring either party to give at least six months’ written notice, with the notice period not to expire before the last day of the initial employment period.
Poten interpreted this wording as requiring the broker to remain employed until May 2029 or pay an amount equivalent to the salary for the remaining term.
The court rejected that interpretation. It found that the wording did not establish a workable notice period for most of the initial term. The clause would effectively prevent notice from expiring before the fixed-term period ended, undermining the stated six-month notice requirement.
The court also considered the principle that ambiguous contractual wording may be interpreted against the party responsible for drafting it. Poten had drafted the contract.
Applying the relevant default provision under Singapore’s Employment Act, the court determined that four weeks’ notice applied. It awarded Poten S$32,384.62 in payment in lieu of notice, far below the amount the company had sought.
The ruling turned on the wording of this particular contract and the applicable Singapore law; it does not mean that all long notice periods or fixed-term employment arrangements are unenforceable.
Why the Employer’s Lost-Profit Claim Failed
Poten also claimed substantial damages based on the profits it said the broker would have generated through May 2029.
The company relied on projections based on his historical profits. However, the court found that the evidence did not adequately account for factors such as changes in the liquefied petroleum gas market or establish that the broker’s clients would stop trading with Poten after his departure.
The court also considered the company’s efforts to reduce its losses, including its approach to replacing the broker and transferring client relationships.
It rejected the common-law damages claim. However, under a separate provision of the Employment Act, it awarded Poten a further S$32,384.62 in statutory damages, equivalent to the amount of payment in lieu of notice.
The court also found that the broker had no entitlement to retain S$66,976.03 in salary paid for the period after he stopped working, awarding that amount to Poten.
What HR Teams Can Learn From the Ruling
The case highlights several considerations for HR professionals involved in drafting employment contracts and managing employee departures.
1. Make termination clauses clear and workable
Notice provisions should state clearly how much notice each party must give and how that requirement operates during a fixed-term period. Wording that creates uncertainty about whether an employee can resign before the term ends may lead to disputes.
2. Review fixed-term commitments carefully
Employers should distinguish between the agreed duration of employment and the contractual mechanism for early termination. If an agreement is intended to restrict early departure or impose financial consequences, the wording should be reviewed carefully under the applicable law.
3. Ensure financial claims are supported by evidence
Claims for lost profits require more than projecting an employee’s historical performance into the future. Employers may need to substantiate expected losses, consider relevant market conditions and demonstrate reasonable efforts to mitigate those losses.
4. Document departures and salary payments
When an employee resigns without working through the expected notice period, HR and payroll teams should clarify the employee’s status, whether garden leave has been formally exercised, and whether any salary payments remain due or need to be recovered.
5. Obtain legal advice on complex clauses
Contract terms involving lengthy notice periods, substantial payment obligations or early termination can have significant financial consequences. Employers should seek qualified legal advice to ensure that the provisions are consistent with applicable employment law.
A Reminder to Review Employment Contracts
Poten succeeded on all three claims, but the total award of S$131,745.27 was substantially lower than the amount it had sought in payment in lieu of notice alone.
For HR leaders, the decision illustrates why contractual language, evidence of loss and consistent departure procedures matter. Clear drafting cannot eliminate every employment dispute, but it can reduce uncertainty about the rights and obligations of both parties.
The High Court had not determined the issue of legal costs at the time of the judgment.
