• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious AXA Insurance Agent , Ramesh Krishnan, gets S$4m High Court award , 2017

shiokalingam

Alfrescian
Loyal
ST_20170815_VIPAY15_3348618.jpg

Mr Ramesh Krishnan, who has been working at a vegetarian cafe, lost his defamation suit against former employer AXA in the High Court in 2015, but the Court of Appeal later ruled that AXA had breached its duty of care to him. The High Court's award of $4.026 million was for loss of earnings from the negligence on the part of AXA in preparing the reference.ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN



http://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...arded-4m-after-bad-reference-cost-him-new-job



Insurance agent gets $4m High Court award

Ex-employer's scathing reference cost him chance to join another company

K.C. VIJAYAN, THE STRAITS TIMES
Aug 15, 2017 06:00 am


The High Court has awarded $4.026 million to an insurance agent after a scathing letter of reference from a previous employer cost him the chance to join another insurer - Prudential.


The award was for loss of earnings from the negligence on the part of AXA Life Insurance Singapore for whom the agent, Mr Ramesh Krishnan, had previously worked.

Justice George Wei noted yesterday that the stands of both parties had been "polar opposites" when it came to damages.

Mr Ramesh had sought $63 million, while AXA urged that he should be awarded only a nominal sum of $1.

The Court of Appeal had asked the High Court to determine the damages after ruling last year that AXA had breached its duty of care to Mr Ramesh.

The 47-year-old, described as "one of AXA's best compensated advisers", had accused AXA of defaming him in 2012 when providing references on his work performance.

He lost the defamation suit in the High Court in 2015, but the Appeal Court later ruled that AXA had breached its duty of care to him.

The apex court had also noted AXA's breach of duty led Prudential not to hire Mr Ramesh.

When Prudential asked AXA for the reference, it wrote back to say that his outfit "showed a very poor 13th month persistency rate" - meaning that many of his clients did not stick with their policies - and "we are very concerned as to whether the clients have been provided with proper advice".

The Appeal Court said this would have given the mistaken impression that Mr Ramesh was not competent and did not square with the evidence that he was one of AXA's best financial services directors, and it had earlier persuaded him not to resign.

Mr Ramesh's lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam argued that Prudential would have hired him but for AXA's negligence.

However, AXA's counsel Pillai Muralidharan countered he would merely have stood a chance of being hired.

Justice Wei decided to use the package conditionally offered by Prudential as a conservative guide.

Starting from April 2011, this included a commencement allowance of $675,000, and an initial salary of $65,625 for the first 12 months and $43,750 for the following months till July 2016.

He also looked at loss of future earnings between August 2016 to July 2018 at a discounted rate. From this, the judge deducted the salary Mr Ramesh earned from working, in the meantime, at a vegetarian cafe.

An AXA Singapore spokesman said yesterday it is seeking legal advice on the judgment.

"Providing for and protecting our policyholders is our top priority and we remain committed to ensuring that our appointed representatives are fit and proper and meet the competency, financial soundness and integrity standards required by us and the MAS."

Mr Ramesh said: "People must know that justice is served. Somebody must go out there and make a point."

He hopes to kick-start his 15-year insurance career again.
 

shiokalingam

Alfrescian
Loyal
AXA Insurance a sore loser. Earning millions on Overiding Commmissions on Ramesh.

Preventing Prudential Insurance to do the same . :mad:
 

Scrooball (clone)

Alfrescian
Loyal
Insurance companies are mostly scumbags. It is a well-known fact that they have teams of people trying to find loopholes not to pay u. Even their terms and conditions are laughable. U need to be at an advanced stage of cancer before u can get a payout. By then, u are probably better off shopping for a comfortable coffin.
 

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
Nobody mentioned that it was Bukit Batok's Ah Mu representing AXA - imagine how they reacted when his advice of pleading the nominal $1 as compensation turned into $4.4m - then again the claim was for $63m so it is all a matter of perspective.

The other point not mentioned was the CoA had overturned the ruling by the same HC judge that had dismissed all of the claims only to have the CoA allow the appeal and then remit the matter back to the original HC judge to by the CoA to assess damages:

The plaintiff, Mr Ramesh s/o Krishnan (“the Plaintiff”), was formerly an agent of the defendant, AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd (“the Defendant”). He brought claims in defamation, malicious falsehood and negligence against the Defendant in respect of several references and communications provided by the Defendant to two of his prospective employers and to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”). On 6 May 2015, I dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claims. The decision is reported as Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd [2015] 4 SLR 1 (“Ramesh HC”) The Plaintiff appealed my decision to the Court of Appeal. On 27 July 2016, the Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal in part, finding that the Defendant was liable to the Plaintiff in negligence. The Court of Appeal also remitted the matter to me for damages to be assessed. This judgment, therefore, pertains to the damages payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.


27 The Plaintiff commenced the present proceedings against the Defendant on 30 November 2012, claiming in defamation, malicious falsehood and negligence. I dismissed all three claims on 6 May 2015. With regard to the claim in negligence, I held that whilst the Defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care in providing information to other organisations in respect of the plaintiff’s employment, there was no breach of duty on the facts. In addition, whilst no decision was made on causation, I noted that it was questionable whether the Plaintiff had proved that the Defendant had caused its loss (Ramesh HC at [284]). The Plaintiff appealed in respect of my decision on the claim in negligence.

28 As mentioned, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and found that the Defendant did owe the Plaintiff a duty of care in preparing the references and communications which it had sent to Prudential and to MAS. The applicable standard of care was that an employer (or in this case, principal) who writes a reference for an employee must take reasonable care to:

32 The Court of Appeal found that causation had been made out and that the Defendant’s breach of duty had caused Prudential not to hire the Plaintiff.

The full judgment here: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php - Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd - [2017] SGHC 197
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Interesting case and looks like the journalist either did not have time to read the judgement or did not understand what it meant.

1. The restaurant where he is works is owned by him and his wife. Though he claimed to be a kitchen hand. Anyway I expect the IRAS to catch this guy out from the claims on his business where incurred close to $650k losses in 2 years.

2. He was terminated but asked AXA to allow him to resign which he did on the same day

3. He did not know why Prudential did not follow thru with the offer until he went to see his MP Teo Chee Hean who then wrote to MAS. MAS sent him a letter explaining in the main that AXA fixed him up.

4. AXA is truly a dirty organisation by inventing a 13 month persistency ratio as a performance measure when the actual organisation measure is 19 month. In addition the 13 month included the period where he resigned and some of his staff had left and the accounts became "orphans" - no one to encourage client to pay the next annual premium or sevice the account. It is this factor and point 5 hat the court of appeal found in his favour

5. The Ang Mo CEO was directly involved in manipulating the reference check and even asked is staff to revise the reference letter negatively. AXA should make the CEO pay the $4M

6. Ah Mu's performance looks poor for introducing evidence late etc and coming out with the ridiculous amount of $1.

Thank god there is Court of Appeal. His income statement from AXA from the time he was employed to his resignation shows that he was a high performer.

7. Prudential should sue AXA for misleading them and MAS should sanction the CEO for misleading both Prudential and MAS by what he wrote in his letter.
 

Bonut

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why would AXA want to fix that keleng kia ? After all, he was there most prolific goalscorer.
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
Why would AXA want to fix that keleng kia ? After all, he was there most prolific goalscorer.

sounds like it was personal.

When it comes to this type of company, often there is conflict between the top salesman and the CEO. For example who is paid more? CEO? Or the top salesman? Top salesman will say company is nothing without him. CEO will disagree. That sort of thing.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Exactly, it was personal. The negotiations to remain in the company broke down and the CEO was losing one of their better salesmen to the competitor and so he decided to sabotage him. MAS is also a cock outfit, they did not even conduct their own investigation and took the CEO's word. Why bother putting a regulatory framework when they don't know how to govern it. When Prudential asks AXA to explain how they came out with the persistency ratio, AXA refused to respond.

Can you imagine the number of such cases where the victim has no clue that he has been screwed. If Teo Chee Hean had not written to MAS, no one will the wiser.

sounds like it was personal.

When it comes to this type of company, often there is conflict between the top salesman and the CEO. For example who is paid more? CEO? Or the top salesman? Top salesman will say company is nothing without him. CEO will disagree. That sort of thing.
 

shiokalingam

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why would AXA want to fix that keleng kia ? After all, he was there most prolific goalscorer.

Top sales like Ramesh will bring all clients to new company - generally clients will move. Axa 's damages far exceeded the s$4m high court award had Ramesh joined Prudential.
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
Actually this instance is very similar to what happens when a top MLM distributor wants to quit and take his entire downlines to join a competitor.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
The judge seemed upset that Court of Appeal had found in the plaintiff's favour. I think that Judge must have been swayed by the fact that AXA terminated first and that Plaintiff was clearly bullshitting the about his employment in the restaurant as a kitchen hand when he clearly owns the place with the wife. He did not see the big picture. He formed an opinion about the plaintiff and stuck with it. But the way he calculated the $4m to me was methodical and fair and possibly to avoid another appeal.

Anyway AXA let go of the CEO last year and the possibility that MAS may have acted.

How did the High Court got it wrong?
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Exactly, it was personal. The negotiations to remain in the company broke down and the CEO was losing one of their better salesmen to the competitor and so he decided to sabotage him. MAS is also a cock outfit, they did not even conduct their own investigation and took the CEO's word. Why bother putting a regulatory framework when they don't know how to govern it. When Prudential asks AXA to explain how they came out with the persistency ratio, AXA refused to respond.

Can you imagine the number of such cases where the victim has no clue that he has been screwed. If Teo Chee Hean had not written to MAS, no one will the wiser.

When the late Wong Pakshong was in charge of MAS....they were on the ball, don't think this kind of 'monekying' around with MAS was tolerated. MAS was an entire totally ' animal' back then. Now...it is more of 'pussy cat'.

Wong Pakshong recently passed away, was rather surprised he had a rather subdued a very low key quarter page obituary & nothing much was mentioned...despite that fact that, he built a rock solid MAS....HALIMAH had pages written about her & still counting...& she is not even elected!.

You get the a feeling that, their 'guard dog'...must be sniffing somewhere...where he shouldn't have.
 
Top