We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology Newsfeed
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Learn
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Learn
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact customerservices@lexology.com

Register

Aliev Firoudin v. Kon Yin Tong & Anor [2013] SGHC 128 (Singapore, High Court, 9 July 2013)

WongPartnership LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

Singapore August 30 2013

Payment of an annual wage supplement held to be an implied term of an employment contract as it was the employer's practice to pay a fixed sum of one month's salary to every employee each year.

WongPartnership LLP - Jenny Tsin and Vivien Yui
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Singapore
  • Employment & Labor
  • Litigation
  • WongPartnership LLP

Popular articles from this firm

  1. A court must examine the entire factual matrix of the case to determine if the facts show that the beneficiary of an on-demand performance bond had acted unconscionably and without good faith when making a call on the demand, and if it had, the court woul *
  2. Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v Akai Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) *
  3. Pearson & Ors v Lehman Brothers Finance SA & Ors [2010] EWHC 2914 (CH) (England, High Court, 19 November 2010) *
  4. Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (England, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2013) *
  5. Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL & Anor [2013] EWHC 1039 (Comm) (England, High Court, 26 April 2013) *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com.

Send to Create
Powered by Lexology

Related topic hubs

  1. Singapore
  2. Employment & Labor
  3. Litigation

Related Singapore articles

  1. Proposed key changes to the Employment Act: phase 2 review *
  2. Global Employment Pensions and Incentives Bulletin: March 2016 *
  3. Asia Employment Law: Quarterly Review - Issue 18: Fourth Quarter 2017 *

Related international articles

  1. Protection of Employment for those on a minimum wage * - Malta
  2. Asia employment law: quarterly review: Q4 2013 * - Asia-Pacific
  3. Employment & labour law in the Netherlands * - Netherlands

Lexology Navigator Q&A

Compare jurisdictions:Arbitration

  1. Spain
  2. Hong Kong
  3. DIFC
  4. View more
Greg Jacobson
Governance & Legal Coordinator
Perth Airport
What our clients say

"Lexology is an excellent and extremely useful initiative. Its certainly more useful than some of the paid services that I have signed up to."

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 - 2019 Globe Business Media Group