Not Just a Pet Theory: In Litigation, Details Matter In this otherwise straightforward case of alleged wrongful termination, the central issue was whether the claimant employee had told her supervisor over a call that she did not intend to return to Singapore for an extended time. If so, that would justify terminating the claimant's employment. Among (many) other things, the supervisor gave evidence that during their call, the claimant had mentioned buying bunnies for her children in Ireland. As far as I can tell, the claimant did not contest or address this seemingly minor and irrelevant detail. Yet, it was a detail that weighed on the judge's mind. He said (at [28]): "One does not buy pet rabbits in Ireland during a temporary stay of less than two months. That is more consistent with the defendant's case that the claimant was intending to remain in Ireland for an extended period." This was not a decisive point, but it certainly did not help the claimant. A good reminder to all dispute resolution specialists that even the tiniest details can cause problems to multiply faster than rabbits. #law #employment #litigation #disputes #pet #rabbits
Fitzgerald, Ruth v Dulwich College (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 114 Contract — Discharge
Head of Legal @ Orient Futures | LL.B (Hons), IBFA General Counsel
3moThanks for sharing, Gordon!