He called himself an exceptional CFO but the judge wasn't convinced
District Judge Jonathan Ng Pang Ern dismissed a former CFO's S$200,000 bonus claim on 1 September 2026, finding he had rewritten his own bonus criteria.
The decision, issued in the State Courts of Singapore, closes out a dispute over two years of unpaid annual performance bonuses claimed by a former chief financial officer against Banshing Industrial Co (Pte) Ltd, a plastics precision engineering manufacturer.
The claimant joined Banshing Industrial as CFO on 1 November 2022 under a contract that set his basic salary at S$20,000 a month and his annual performance bonus, or APB, at S$100,000. The contract stated that the criteria for the bonus were "to be agreed and defined during probation period," a three month window ending 31 January 2023. That deadline passed without the criteria being settled.
The bonus terms eventually took shape months later. In a June 2023 email, the company's director told the claimant the APB would depend on delivery of a financial valuation model, specifically an Excel workbook made up of seven linked worksheets. The claimant acknowledged the email and, weeks later, confirmed he had received the latest version of a mind map setting out the model's structure. The court found the criteria had been agreed and defined through this exchange, by 16 June 2023 at the latest.
The claimant never delivered the seven worksheets. Instead, he pointed to a range of other initiatives, including an internal return on investment framework and staff training sessions, arguing these satisfied the substance of what was required. At trial, he acknowledged he had reinterpreted the director's requirements on his own terms because he believed he understood the valuation model better than the director did. He also told the court he deserved credit for the broader value he said he brought to the company. When the judge put to him that his case amounted to "I'm an exceptional CFO; I'm entitled to my APB bonus," the claimant agreed.
The judge rejected that approach, ruling that the claimant was not entitled to unilaterally reinterpret criteria the director had described as extremely specific. Because the claimant never produced the seven worksheets in either 2023 or 2024, the bonus criteria for both years went unmet, and the breach of contract claim failed.
The claimant also alleged that the company's managing director had separately promised, during an office conversation in January 2024, that the deferred bonuses would be "assured to be paid." The managing director denied making any such promise. Weighing the two accounts, the judge found the managing director more credible and held that the claimant had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the representation was made. That finding disposed of the claims in fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.
A related claim in estoppel by representation failed for a separate reason: Singapore courts have held that estoppel by representation is a defensive doctrine that cannot found a cause of action in its own right. A further claim for S$40,000 in damages under the Misrepresentation Act fell away once the underlying representation was not established. In his written conclusion, the judge said the claimant had only himself to blame, having chosen to redefine the bonus criteria on his own terms rather than meet the ones the company had set. The claimant's action was dismissed in full, with the parties directed to file written submissions on costs within two weeks.
