[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-267914-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-267914-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","2020-sgca-52-judgment-contract-employment-law-tort","[2020] SGCA 52 - Judgment - Contract - Employment Law - Tort","","Civil Appeal No 153 of 2018 before the Singapore Court of Appeal addresses entitlement disputes arising from a post-resignation agreement between Ricardo Leiman and Noble-related entities. The case turns on contractual construction, including implied terms, and on the extent to which courts may review decisions made by a contractually designated remuneration and options committee. The appeal also examines issues on employees’ duties and employers’ duties, along with tort claims involving conspiracy, inducement of breach, and unlawful interference, as well as damages and liquidated damages or penalty.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/2020-sgca-52-judgment-contract-employment-law-tort/267914/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/2020-sgca-52-judgment-contract-employment-law-tort/267914.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Taylor Morgan","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-09","2026-09-14",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the central dispute in SGCA 52 (Civil Appeal No 153 of 2018)?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The dispute concerns Mr Leiman’s post-resignation entitlements under an agreement, which Noble entities withheld based on a committee determination that he acted to the companies’ detriment.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did the High Court handle Mr Leiman’s contractual breaches and decision-making process concerns?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The High Court dismissed the appellants’ claims after finding the committee’s discretion was correctly exercised because Mr Leiman breached non-competition and confidentiality obligations, while rejecting the due process argument.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What legal issues does the Court of Appeal focus on in this judgment?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The judgment addresses proper construction of contracts that vest decision-making powers in a designated entity and the scope of judicial review when that entity’s decision is challenged.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},267914,1789426496,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099523885336,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE  \n[2020] SGCA 52  \nCivil Appeal No 153 of 2018  \nBetween  \n(1) Ricardo Leiman  \n(2) Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited  \n…Appellants  \nAnd  \n(1) Noble Resources Ltd  \n(2) Noble Group Ltd  \n…Respondents  \nIn the matter of Suit No 393 of 2012  \nBetween  \n(1) Ricardo Leiman  \n(2) Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited  \n…Plaintiffs  \nAnd  \n(1) Noble Resources Ltd  \n(2) Noble Group Ltd  \n…Defendants  \nVersion No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs)  \nJUDGMENT  \n[Contract]—[Contractual terms]—[Implied terms]  \n[Contract]—[Contractual terms]—[Rules of construction][Damages]—[Liquidated damages or penalty]  \n[Employment Law]—[Employees’ duties]—[Good faith and fidelity]  \n[Employment Law]—[Employers’ duties][Tort]—[Conspiracy]  \n[Tort]—[Inducement of breach of contract][Tort]—[Unlawful interference]  \nii  \nVersion No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs)  \nThis judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.  \nLeiman, Ricardo and another  \nv  \nNoble Resources Ltd and another  \n[2020] SGCA 52  \nCourt of Appeal—Civil Appeal No 153 of 2018  \nSundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, Steven Chong JA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean J  \n20 January 2020  \n28 May 2020 Judgment reserved.  \nSundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court):  \nIntroduction  \n1 This appeal arises out of Suit No 393 of 2012 (“Suit 393”), an action commenced by Mr Ricardo Leiman (“Mr Leiman”) and Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited (“Rothschild Trust”) against Mr Leiman’s former employer, Noble Resources Ltd (“NRL”), and its parent company, Noble Group Ltd (“NGL”) . Suit 393 primarily concerned Mr Leiman’s post-resignation entitlements under an agreement that he entered into with NRL to deal with the terms of his departure from the Noble group of companies (“Noble”) . The appellants claimed, among other things, that the respondents wrongfully denied Mr Leiman his entitlements under the agreement, based on a determination by NGL’s Remuneration and Options Committee (“R&O Committee”) that he had  \nVersion No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs)  \nLeiman, Ricardo v Noble Resources Ltd [2020] SGCA 52  \nacted to Noble’s detriment. The appellants challenged both the substance of that determination and the process by which it had been made.  \n2 The High Court judge (“the Judge”) who heard the matter dismissed the appellants’ claims: see Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2018] SGHC 166 (the “Judgment”) . He reviewed the R&O Committee’s exercise of its discretion not to award Mr Leiman his entitlementsand found that this discretion had been correctly exercised because Mr Leiman had breached his contractual non-competition and confidentiality obligations.  \nHe also rejected the appellants’ argument that Mr Leiman was entitled to but had not been accorded due process by the Committee. However, notwithstanding his finding that Mr Leiman had breached some of his contractual obligations as well as his duty of fidelity, the Judge dismissed NRL’s counterclaim against Mr Leiman because, in his view, there was no basis for NRL to recover the payments it had made to Mr Leiman under the relevant contracts between the parties.  \n3 This appeal raises issues pertaining to the proper construction of contracts in the context of terms that vest decision-making powers in a contractually designated entity and the extent to which a court may review the exercise of those powers when a decision made by that entity is challenged. We will address these and some other points in this judgment.  \nThe material facts  \n4 Most of the relevant facts have been set out at [3] to [50] of the Judgment. We therefore recount the facts only to the extent necessary.  \n2  \nVersion No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs)  \nLeiman, Ricardo v Noble Resources Ltd [2020] SGCA 52  \nThe parties  \n5 The ","cbCaieDRlm5IG0pP","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaieDRlm5IG0pP","pdf",465172,95,"English","# Introduction\n## The parties\n## The material facts\n## The issues on appeal","[{\"question\":\"What is the central dispute in SGCA 52 (Civil Appeal No 153 of 2018)?\",\"answer\":\"The dispute concerns Mr Leiman’s post-resignation entitlements under an agreement, which Noble entities withheld based on a committee determination that he acted to the companies’ detriment.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the High Court handle Mr Leiman’s contractual breaches and decision-making process concerns?\",\"answer\":\"The High Court dismissed the appellants’ claims after finding the committee’s discretion was correctly exercised because Mr Leiman breached non-competition and confidentiality obligations, while rejecting the due process argument.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal issues does the Court of Appeal focus on in this judgment?\",\"answer\":\"The judgment addresses proper construction of contracts that vest decision-making powers in a designated entity and the scope of judicial review when that entity’s decision is challenged.\"}]","[2020] SGCA 52 - Judgment - Contract - Employment Law - Tort | PDF",239]