SINGAPORE – A chief financial officer who claimed $200,000 in unpaid bonuses has lost his case after a judge found that he had effectively rewritten his employer’s requirements because he believed he knew better.
Ngai Nai Ping Jango joined precision-engineering company Banshing Industrial as its CFO in November 2022, on a monthly salary of $20,000 and an annual performance bonus of $100,000.
His employment was terminated in November 2024, and he left the company in January 2025. He sued for $200,000 in unpaid bonuses for 2023 and 2024, arguing that he had fulfilled the bonus requirements through a financial valuation model he developed and that the company’s founder had assured him the bonuses would be paid.
District Judge Jonathan Ng Pang Ern dismissed his claims on Sept 1, ruling that Ngai had “unilaterally reinterpreted” the bonus criteria because he thought he knew better.
The dispute arose after Banshing director Alvin Cheng Kaway sent Ngai an e-mail in June 2023, setting out what would form the basis of his bonus.
This involved a financial valuation model in an Excel workbook. The workbook was to contain seven worksheets covering areas including historical financial data, financial statements, forecasts, market data, return on invested capital, free cash flow and a final valuation.
Ngai acknowledged receipt of the material and later discussed the requirements with Cheng.
But he did not deliver the seven worksheets.
Instead, Ngai said he had developed his own valuation and return-on-investment model, which he argued met the purpose of what his employer wanted.
Judge Ng rejected this, holding that the seven worksheets were the actual criteria for the bonus and that Ngai had not satisfied them.
Ngai himself accepted this during the trial.
Asked whether he had reinterpreted his manager’s requirements based on what he thought his manager really wanted, he replied: “That’s correct.”
He said he knew more about valuation models than Cheng and could deliver a model that produced the expected results, although not in the required format or template.
Judge Ng said it was not open to Ngai to do this.
The criteria were “extremely specific”, he said.
“Thus, regardless of what the claimant thought about the seven worksheets, and regardless of whether the claimant was correct in so thinking, they remained the criteria for the annual performance bonus,” he said.
“Had he simply delivered the seven worksheets as the defendant had required, he might have found himself in different circumstances today.”
“In this sense, he was the author of his own predicament.”
The dispute also arose because Ngai’s employment contract said that the bonus criteria were to be agreed and defined during his three-month probation.
Ngai argued that Banshing had breached the contract by failing to do so.
But Judge Ng rejected this.
The contract imposed a bilateral obligation on both sides to agree and define the criteria, he said.
The bonus was discussed at a meeting in March 2023, but by then his probation had ended.
More importantly, the judge found that the parties subsequently agreed on the bonus criteria.
In June 2023, Cheng e-mailed Ngai saying that the Excel valuation model would form the basis of his bonus.
Ngai replied that he had received the e-mail and looked forward to discussing it.
Judge Ng said the criteria had therefore been agreed and defined by June 16, 2023, at the latest.
The same criteria also carried over into 2024, the judge held.
During the trial, Ngai argued that he had nevertheless completed the work required through an ROI model that he developed and introduced to the company.
He said he had introduced a capital expenditure policy and ROI framework, trained finance managers, developed an ROI template and incorporated the process into the company’s approval procedures.
But Judge Ng said Ngai’s evidence was “long on technical jargon but short on any meaningful explanation” of how his work satisfied the actual bonus criteria.
Several technical terms were undefined, and it was unclear whether terms that were similar but not identical referred to the same thing, he said.
“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.
Ngai later changed his position, arguing in his closing submissions that he had delivered the “substance” of the seven worksheets.
But the judge said he did not explain how each worksheet corresponded to something he had delivered.
At trial, Ngai also argued that he deserved the bonus because he had gone beyond his normal duties.
Asked whether his position was essentially that he was an “exceptional CFO” who was therefore entitled to the bonus, Ngai replied: “Yes.”
Judge Ng rejected this, saying that whatever Ngai’s assessment of his own performance, he had to meet the specific criteria set for the bonus.
In the lawsuit, Ngai also alleged that Banshing’s founder and managing director Albert Cheng Po Hing had orally assured him that the unpaid bonuses would eventually be paid.
He said Albert Cheng told him in January 2024 that the 2023 bonus had been deferred because the company was facing cash-flow problems, but would be paid when its financial position improved.
He also said he had been told that the bonuses for 2023 and 2024 would be paid.
Albert Cheng denied making these representations.
Judge Ng said he was unable to prefer Ngai’s evidence over Albert Cheng’s. If anything, Albert Cheng’s evidence was more convincing.
He noted that Ngai had active WeChat communications with Albert Cheng but had not pointed to any documentary evidence referring to the alleged promises.
Ngai therefore failed to prove that the representations had been made.
The parties were ordered to file written submissions on costs within two weeks.
Ngai was represented by lawyer Viveganandam Devaraj from Lions Chambers, while Banshing was represented by lawyers Bryan Manaf Ghows and Teh Ri Xing Ruth from Ghows.
