Former CFO loses suit against company for 2 years' performance bonus worth S$200,000

Mr Jango Ngai Nai Ping agreed that he was entitled to the performance bonuses as he was "an exceptional CFO".

A view of the State Courts building in Singapore. (File photo: CNA/Ili Nadhirah Mansor)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: A former chief financial officer of a plastic manufacturing company sued the company for two years' worth of performance bonuses totalling S$200,000 (US$157,500), but lost.

Mr Jango Ngai Nai Ping had been terminated from his role at Banshing Industrial Co over two years after he started work there, without any annual performance bonus payouts.

He sued the company on grounds which include breach of contract, fraudulent representation and negligent misrepresentation.

The judge dismissed all his claims, saying Mr Ngai has found himself in this predicament because he "chose to reimagine the criteria" for the annual performance bonus on his own terms.

In November 2022, Mr Ngai began working for the family-run company that manufactures plastic precision engineering parts.

He was to be paid a basic monthly salary of S$20,000, with an annual performance bonus of S$100,000, according to a judgment dated Tuesday (Sep 1).

Under his employment contract, the criteria for the bonus was to be agreed on and defined during the probation period.

However, there was no agreement or definition of the criteria for the bonus during the probation period.

Instead, in February 2023, company director Alvin Cheng sent Mr Ngai a soft copy of a book about valuation.

He said this book was his "finance bible" and he did not understand the majority of the technical finance portions. He asked Mr Ngai to devote time to reading it for an in-depth discussion.

In June 2023, Mr Alvin Cheng sent an email to Mr Ngai, indicating that the basis of the performance bonus would be a financial valuation model.

He attached a mind map on valuation and highlighted a portion titled "Valuation Excel Workbook".

Mr Ngai argued that he had submitted an investment model in accordance with the bonus criteria around May 2023.

However, the company said he did not deliver any financial valuation model whether in 2023 or 2024. Therefore, there was neither obligation nor basis for the firm to pay Mr Ngai the bonus for both years.

Mr Ngai received a letter of termination in November 2024. He sued the company for S$200,000 in bonuses, as well as S$40,000 in damages, although the basis for this is unclear.

Mr Alvin Cheng gave evidence that he had expected a Microsoft Excel workbook comprising seven worksheets corresponding to the highlighted portion of the mind map.

District Judge Jonathan Ng Pang Ern found that the seven worksheets were the criteria for the bonus, which Mr Ngai did not meet.

MR NGAI'S EXPLANATIONS

The judge said Mr Ngai's explanation of how he satisfied the criteria was "less an explanation than an attempt at technical exposition".

He said Mg Ngai's evidence was "long on technical jargon but short on any meaningful explanation of how any of this satisfied the criteria" for the bonus.

"It is not good enough for the claimant to just throw up one unexplained technical term after another and expect the court to somehow understand and make sense of it all," said Judge Ng.

"Ultimately, and unfortunately, the claimant's evidence as to how he satisfied the (bonus) criteria is both confused and confusing."

Judge Ng pointed to how Mr Ngai had stated that the book handed to him was a university-level textbook meant for "non-financial personnel". There was therefore no reason for a finance professional like himself to "take it too seriously".

In his answers at trial, Mr Ngai said the book was a "university version" handbook, while his 30 years of working experience dealing with financial valuation models meant he was "sophisticated" and had the expertise.

"So, I look at this, it is the very basic, a simplified version of a financial modelling," he said. "In my experience, I developed and implement financial modelling many years in my past employments. So, I can ... I've actually ... I delivered financial modelling more than the seven spreadsheet covered in this handbook."

The judge said Mr Ngai had reinterpreted the criteria for the bonus because he thought he knew better.

When asked if his case was simply, "I'm an exceptional CFO; I'm entitled to my annual performance bonus", Mr Ngai agreed.

Judge Ng said it was not open to him to unilaterally interpret the bonus criteria. As Mr Alvin Cheng testified, the criteria was "extremely specific".

Mr Ngai alleged that Mr Albert Cheng, the managing director and father of Mr Alvin Cheng, had told him that the bonus for 2023 would be deferred but "assured to be paid", and that the bonuses for both years would be paid to him.

Mr Albert Cheng denied this. The judge found that Mr Albert Cheng's evidence was more convincing, and that Mr Ngai had not proven that Mr Albert Cheng had made the alleged representations.

In closing, the judge said that had Mr Ngai simply delivered the seven worksheets, he might have found himself in different circumstances today.

"In this sense, he was the author of his own predicament," said Judge Ng. He ordered both sides to file submissions on costs.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

Jango Ngai Nai Ping 先生同意他有权获得绩效奖金，因为他是一位“杰出的首席财务官”。

新加坡国家法院大楼一景。（资料照片：CNA/Ili Nadhirah Mansor）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一家塑料制造公司的前首席财务官起诉该公司，要求支付两年共计 20 万新元（15.75 万美元）的绩效奖金，但败诉。

Jango Ngai Nai Ping 先生在 Banshing Industrial Co 工作两年多后被解雇，且未获得任何年度绩效奖金。

他以违约、欺诈性陈述和过失性虚假陈述等理由起诉该公司。

法官驳回了他的所有诉求，称 Ngai 先生之所以陷入这种困境，是因为他“自行决定重新制定”年度绩效奖金的标准。

2022年11月，Ngai先生开始在这家生产塑料精密工程零件的家族企业工作。

根据周二（9 月 1 日）的判决，他每月基本工资为 20,000 新元，年度绩效奖金为 100,000 新元。

根据他的雇佣合同，奖金的评定标准应在试用期内商定和确定。

然而，试用期内并未就奖金标准达成一致或作出明确规定。

相反，在 2023 年 2 月，公司董事 Alvin Cheng 向 Ngai 先生发送了一本关于估值的书籍的电子版。

他说这本书是他的“金融圣经”，但他对其中大部分技术性的金融章节并不理解。他请吴先生抽出时间仔细阅读，以便进行深入探讨。

2023 年 6 月，郑先生向倪先生发了一封电子邮件，表示绩效奖金的依据将是财务估值模型。

他附上了一张关于估值的思维导图，并重点介绍了标题为“估值 Excel 工作簿”的部分。

Ngai 先生辩称，他已于 2023 年 5 月左右提交了一份符合奖金标准的投资模型。

然而，该公司表示，无论是在 2023 年还是 2024 年，他都没有提交任何财务估值模型。因此，该公司既没有义务也没有依据向 Ngai 先生支付这两年的奖金。

Ngai 先生于 2024 年 11 月收到解雇信。他起诉该公司，要求支付 20 万新元的奖金以及 4 万新元的赔偿金，但其依据尚不清楚。

郑先生作证说，他原本期望收到一个包含七个工作表的 Microsoft Excel 工作簿，这些工作表与思维导图中突出显示的部分相对应。

地方法官 Jonathan Ng Pang Ern 认定，这七份工作表是获得奖金的标准，而 Ngai 先生没有达到这些标准。

恩盖先生的解释

法官表示，Ngai 先生对他如何满足标准的解释“与其说是解释，不如说是技术性阐述”。

他说，Mg Ngai 提供的证据“充斥着大量的技术术语，但却缺乏对这一切如何满足奖金标准的有意义的解释”。

“原告不能只是抛出一个又一个未经解释的技术术语，就指望法庭能够理解并明白这一切，”吴法官说。

“最终，不幸的是，申索人提供的证据，无论是关于他如何满足（奖金）标准，还是关于他如何满足（奖金）标准，都既混乱又令人费解。”

吴法官指出，吴先生曾表示，交给他的那本书是一本大学教科书，是为“非金融人员”准备的。因此，像他这样的金融专业人士没有理由“过于认真对待”。

在庭审中，吴先生回答说，这本书是一本“大学版”手册，而他30年来处理金融估值模型的工作经验意味着他“经验丰富”且具备专业知识。

“所以，在我看来，这只是财务建模的一个非常基础、简化的版本，”他说。“以我的经验来看，我在过去的工作中开发和实施财务建模多年。所以，我可以……实际上……我交付的财务建模案例远不止这本手册中提到的七个电子表格。”

法官表示，吴先生重新解释了奖金的评定标准，因为他自认为比别人更懂。

当被问及他的理由是否仅仅是“我是一位杰出的首席财务官；我有权获得年度绩效奖金”时，吴先生表示同意。

吴法官表示，他无权单方面解释奖金评定标准。正如郑先生作证时所说，这些标准“极其具体”。

吴先生声称，董事总经理兼郑文文先生的父亲郑先生曾告诉他，2023 年的奖金将被推迟发放，但“保证会支付”，并且这两年的奖金都会支付给他。

郑先生否认了这一说法。法官认为郑先生的证词更有说服力，而吴先生未能证明郑先生曾做出过所指控的陈述。

最后，法官表示，如果 Ngai 先生当时提交了那七份工作表，他今天的情况或许就会有所不同。

“从这个意义上讲，他咎由自取，”吴法官说道。他命令双方提交诉讼费用报告。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。