Skip to content
Court DecisionSGDC

[2025] SGDC 268

[2025] SGDC 268

District Court of Singapore8 Oct 2025DC/DC 2892/2020

Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.

Open official sourcePDFReport an issue

Subsequent treatment

Cited in 1 later decision. No negative treatment detected.

para

Introduction

para

Background Facts

para

The Action

para

The Plaintiff’s case

para

The Defendant’s case

para

Misappropriated Sums

para

The Trial

para

The Issues

para

My Decision and Reasoning

para

Whether the Defendant had failed to report for work on at least 17 Mondays without authorization?

para

Whether the Defendant worked less that her stipulated hours on days she was at work without authorisation?

para

Whether the Defendant received free massages/facial treatments without authorisation and was unjustly enriched?

para

Unauthorized Anna Treatments by Ms. Zhou and Ms. Han

para

Unauthorized Anna Treatments by Michelle Ung, Chan Yet Ngo, Rowena and Tong Tong

para

Whether the Defendant had provided Unauthorised Free Treatments/Upgrades to customers?

para

Did the Defendant grant the Unauthorised Free Treatments/Upgrades wrongfully by handwriting non-matching treatment packages in the Customer Treatment Booklets?

para

Damages claimable by the Plaintiff in respect of the Unauthorised Free Treatments/Upgrades extended to Ivy Bong and Lilian Seet

para

Anticipated losses not claimable

para

Actual consumption losses

para

Evidence of actual consumption loss adduced

para

Whether the business record exception applied

para

“In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3556 (suing on behalf of itself and all subsidiary proprietors of Northstar @ AMK) v Orion-One Development Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and another [2020] 3 SLR 373 (“Orion-One”), the High Court held at [22] that the rationale for the business records exception is that a statement made in the ordinary course of business is a record of historical fact made from a disinterested standpoint, and which may thereby be presumed to be true. In Banque de Commerce et de Placements SA, DIFC Branch and another v China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corp Ltd (Shandong Energy International (Singapore) Pte Ltd, third party; Golden Base Energy Pte Ltd, fourth party) [2024] SGHC 145, the High Court held at [121] that in order for this exception to be engaged, the statements in question must have been made contemporaneously with the facts which have occurred, or as soon as the exigencies of the situation will permit.” [Emphasis added]

para

Whether it is in the interest of justice to exclude the hearsay evidence

para

If the Consumption Records were admissible, what weight should be assigned to the Consumption Records?

para

Amounts allegedly misappropriated by the Defendant

para

The $4,000 Payment

para

The $500 Payment

para

The $1,500 Payment

para

Conclusion

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.