Where an employment contract expressly states that a bonus is “discretionary” or is within the employer’s “absolute right” to declare, does an employer have an unfettered discretion to decide whether to declare bonuses? In BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and another v Sumit Grover [2024] SGHC 206, the General Division of the High Court reiterated that employers owe an implied duty to exercise their contractual discretion reasonably. What is considered reasonable would depend on the specific facts of the case.

Across jurisdictions, we see a rising trend towards more active ESG enforcement and litigation. In our The Year Ahead: Global Disputes Forecast 2024, nearly three-quarters (73%) of the respondents said that environmental, social and governance disputes presented as the top risks to their organizations in the coming year.
In this client alert, we provide a high-level overview of the key trends and developments in ESG enforcement and litigation in Singapore in three areas: greenwashing, employment law and anti-money laundering (AML).

In two separate decisions, the High Court provides a new sentencing framework that imposes heftier punishments for failing to ensure the safety of employees at work and provides clarification as to whether settlement payments may be taken into consideration when determining the amount of compensation payable by an employer for workplace injury. The General Division of the High Court (SGHC) in two recent decisions in Public Prosecutor v Manta Equipment (S) Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 157 and MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd v Devaswarupa and others [2022] SGHC 178 considered two pieces of legislation concerning workplace safety and accidents in Singapore.