SINGAPORE – A man who spent nearly two decades climbing the ranks at Japanese automotive parts giant Denso has lost his High Court lawsuit claiming that the company had terminated his employment in “bad faith” to avoid paying him retrenchment benefits.
In a written judgment issued on May 11, Assistant Registrar (AR) Ramu Miyapan struck out the entire lawsuit brought by former Denso International Asia employee Daniel Seng, finding that the claim had “no recognisable legal basis for wrongful dismissal”.
Mr Seng had worked at Denso International Asia (DIAS) for about 19 years and four months before his employment was terminated on Oct 1, 2024.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Mr Seng joined the company in May 2005 and rose through the ranks to become the head of strategic business planning in July 2022, a role he held until his termination some two years and three months later.
DIAS is the Singapore-based subsidiary of Japan’s Denso Corporation, one of the world’s largest automotive components manufacturers and a major supplier of vehicle technology and parts to global carmarkers including Toyota.
Court documents stated that Mr Seng sued DIAS in 2025, alleging that the company had disguised what was effectively a retrenchment as an ordinary termination to deprive him of what he described as “rightful retrenchment benefits”.
Mr Seng also sought damages for psychiatric harm, distress, humiliation and loss of reputation.
DIAS applied to strike out Mr Seng’s lawsuit over alleged wrongful dismissal and retrenchment benefits.
A striking-out application allows the court to dismiss a case without a full trial if the claim is found to be legally unsustainable. The application was heard on April 16.
The court said Mr Seng had not shown any contractual or statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits.
“(For the sake of argument), the claimant’s factual allegations that his role was made redundant, this alone would not confer any legal entitlement to retrenchment benefits,” AR Ramu said in his written judgment.
“Such an entitlement must be founded either in contract or statute.”
Under Singapore law, there is generally no automatic statutory right to retrenchment benefits unless such benefits are provided for in an employment contract, collective agreement or specific legal provision.
Mr Seng also argued that his termination was contrary to the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, which set out examples of wrongful dismissal, such as firing workers for discriminatory reasons, to punish them for exercising employment rights, or on false grounds.
But the court said the guidelines do not have the force of law and cannot, on their own, be used as a basis to sue an employer in civil court.
The guidelines were issued in 2019 by the Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation to guide the handling of wrongful dismissal disputes.
Describing them as “administrative guidance documents”, the court said they were meant to guide the Employment Claims Tribunal in deciding wrongful dismissal cases, rather than create standalone legal rights for employees.
The court also rejected Mr Seng’s claims for distress, humiliation and reputational damage, reiterating that such damages are generally not recoverable in wrongful dismissal cases.
In concluding observations, AR Ramu said the “mere assertion” that conduct was wrongful or contrary to administrative guidelines, “without more”, could not sustain a civil action.
Lawyer Mohamed Arshad Tahir of Fernandez LLC acted for Mr Seng while lawyer Christine Chiam of Focus Law Asia represented DIAS.
Mr Seng declined to comment when he was contacted after the judgment.
