POTEN & PARTNERS PTE. LTD. v LEE WON SANG
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 5–11 October 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Siong Thye |
| Charges / claim | Employment Law |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, I.R.B. Law LLP, Abdul Basheer s/o Abdul Kader, Kanagavelu Navneeth, Kheshin Cheong Rui Pin, Marsha Binte Shahrin, Mohamed Baiross, Pang Khin Wee, Tay Yong Seng |
Source: [2026] SGHC 208, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (9)
Case Significance
Poten & Partners Pte Ltd v Lee Won Sang [2026] SGHC 208 was decided by Tan Siong Thye SJ in the General Division of the High Court on 7 October 2026. Mr Lee, a Senior Liquefied Petroleum Gas Broker, tendered his resignation on 4 April 2025 although his contract provided an initial period up to and including 15 May 2029. Poten claimed more than S$1.7m as payment in lieu of notice or, alternatively, damages of about S$3.7m to S$4.1m, and also sought repayment of salary paid for April and May 2025 on the basis of unjust enrichment. The court awarded S$32,384.62 under the PILON claim, S$32,384.62 under the damages claim and S$66,976.03 for unjust enrichment, a total of S$131,745.27, with costs to be heard.
[2026] SGHC 208 explained
POTEN & PARTNERS PTE. LTD. v LEE WON SANG ([2026] SGHC 208) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 7 October 2026. It is categorised under Employment Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGHC 208 about?
POTEN & PARTNERS PTE. LTD. v LEE WON SANG ([2026] SGHC 208) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Employment Law — Pay — Unjust enrichment”, “Employment Law — Contract of service — Breach”, “Employment Law — Contract of service — Period of notice”, and “Employment Law — Contract of service — Termination by employee”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 208 consider?
The judgment refers to Employment Act (Cap 91). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2026] SGHC 208?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGHC 208 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard a claim by Poten & Partners Pte Ltd against its former Senior Liquefied Petroleum Gas Broker, Lee Won Sang, who resigned on 4 April 2025 under a contract with an initial period running to 15 May 2029. Poten claimed more than S$1.7m as payment in lieu of notice, alternatively damages, and sought repayment of salary paid after 4 April 2025. The court held Poten succeeded on all three claims but awarded far less than claimed, a total of S$131,745.27.
What was Poten & Partners v Lee Won Sang about ([2026] SGHC 208)?
Poten & Partners Pte Ltd sued its former broker Lee Won Sang after he resigned on 4 April 2025 during an initial employment period ending 15 May 2029, claiming payment in lieu of notice, damages for breach, and repayment of salary under unjust enrichment.
How much was Lee Won Sang ordered to pay in [2026] SGHC 208?
The court found Mr Lee liable to pay Poten a total of S$131,745.27, made up of S$32,384.62 under the PILON claim, S$32,384.62 under the damages claim and S$66,976.03 under the unjust enrichment claim.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (19)
Cited By (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 208)