Ruth Fitzgerald v Dulwich College (Singapore) Pte Ltd
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Fitzgerald, Ruth v Dulwich College (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 114 was decided by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, with Choo Han Teck J reserving judgment on 3 May 2024 after hearing Originating Claim No 314 of 2022 on 20-21 March and 18 April 2024. The claimant, Ruth Fitzgerald, an Irish citizen, was employed by the defendant, an international school in Singapore, as a school counsellor under a three-year fixed-term employment contract running from 1 August 2020. As part of the contract benefits, her husband and two children moved to Singapore under employment and dependant passes arranged by the defendant, the family received medical insurance coverage paid by the defendant, and the children attended the school with tuition fees fully waived. Ms Fitzgerald left Singapore on 28 June 2021 for Ireland for the summer vacation, with staff told to return by the school term recommencing on 18 August 2021. Before she returned, she received an emailed letter dated 5 August 2021 notifying her that her contract was terminated; the letter stated that in a call with her line manager Lynne Millar on 4 August 2021 she had confirmed she did not intend to return to Singapore until January 2022. The case was framed in contract around discharge and anticipatory breach. The claimant was represented by Sharpe & Jagger LLC, including Samuel Richard Sharpe, and the defendant by Bird & Bird ATMD LLP.
Summary
In this General Division of the High Court matter, Ruth Fitzgerald, an Irish citizen employed as a school counsellor by Dulwich College (Singapore) Pte Ltd under a three-year fixed term contract, sued the school for wrongful termination after her employment was terminated by an emailed letter, while the school maintained the termination was justified by her anticipatory breach in stating she would not return to Singapore until January 2022. The central issue was whether the claimant had told her line manager that she did not intend to return until January 2022. The court found on a balance of probabilities that she had said so, held that this was an anticipatory breach that justified the termination, and dismissed the claim with costs to follow the event.
What was Ruth Fitzgerald v Dulwich College (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 114 about?
[2024] SGHC 114 concerned a contract dispute over anticipatory breach after Dulwich College (Singapore) terminated school counsellor Ruth Fitzgerald, an Irish citizen on a three-year fixed-term contract from 1 August 2020. Choo Han Teck J of the High Court decided the matter on 3 May 2024.
Why was Ruth Fitzgerald's employment with Dulwich College terminated?
Ruth Fitzgerald received an emailed letter dated 5 August 2021 terminating her contract. It stated that in a 4 August 2021 call with her line manager Lynne Millar she confirmed she did not intend to return to Singapore until January 2022, before the term recommenced on 18 August 2021.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 114)