JUDGMENT

Denys Roberts CJ:

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant the Borneo Insurance Limited from December 1980 until 30 June 1982 as marketing manager. He resigned on the latter date after giving one month's notice. Nevertheless he continued thereafter to be employed by the defendant as an independent agent until he was reengaged by the defendant as general manager with effect from 1 May 1983.

The terms and conditions of that employment were set out in two letters dated 16 and 29 April 1983. Both were signed by Mr. K.H. Ang the then managing director of the defendant. The plaintiff continued to be employed in that capacity until 24 April 1984 when the defendant terminated his contract, by letter bearing that date, giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. On 5 May 1984, the defendant caused a notice to be published in the Borneo Bulletin, announcing that "Mr. Cheong Jak Kim had ceased to be employed by our company and he has no authority to transact any business or collect any monies on behalf of the company"; underneath appeared the words "Borneo Insurance Limited". Against that background I turn to the claims put forward by the plaintiff.

Claims for salary in lieu of notice

First of all I will deal with his claim for 2 months' additional salary in lieu of notice. The plaintiff argues that he was entitled to three months' notice of the termination of his agreement, or salary in lieu. His contract as general manager is silent as to the period of notice to be given. In his earlier contract however, dated 17 December 1980, when he was engaged as marketing manager, a period of 3 months notice was required, or 3 months salary in lieu. Mr. Ang, who was the managing director of the defendant until October 1983, gave evidence that 3 months was the usual length of notice for senior staff. Mr. Lim Teck Lee in evidence said that this practice had changed since Mr. Ang left, though this was some months after the plaintiff was engaged as general manager. I was referred to the Labour Act (Cap. 93) which provides for a period of notice of termination of an agreement not exceeding 1 month. That Act however, is applicable only to those defined in the Act itself as workers, that is to say in effect manual workers and those performing similar tasks including domestic staff. It is not intended to cover executive and managerial staff.

The common law is that, in the absence of custom or stipulation, reasonable notice is required. Vol. 25 of the 3rd Edn. of Halisbury's Laws at p. 490, to which Mr. Clidero has referred me, contains many cases which suggest that more senior employees are entitled, in the absence of any specific provision in their contracts, to a longer period of notice than junior employees.

One month's notice would no doubt be entirely proper for junior employees employed on a month to month basis, but for more senior employees, who after all are likely to find it harder to sell their skills in the market, a longer period is to be expected. I have no doubt that, if the matter had been canvassed at the time when Mr. Chong's contract was concluded in 1983, a period of 3 months' notice would have been included in his contract. I also give weight to the fact that, in a contract with the same company about 2 years before, 3 months' notice had been required, when he occupied a more junior position. I conclude therefore that a proper length of notice under the contract would have been 3 months and that the plaintiff is entitled to a further 2 months salary, which amounts to $7,000, in addition to the sum of $6,194 which was due to him by way of salary and other sums on 24 April 1984.

Provision of a car

I turn now to the claim by the plaintiff for damages for the failure of the defendant to provide him with the use of a car in accordance with the contract. Clause 5 of the letter of 16 April reads as follows:

A car will be given to you within 6 months if you reach the target sales of new business of $100,000 gross premium. However, you