Some S$1.5 million of reparations under contention based on Oon family’s total salaries: defendant 

THE S$1.55 million in reparations being sought from Violet Oon and her family was calculated based on a total of S$1.1 million in salaries paid to Oon and her two children between January 2015 and November 2018, said business partner Manoj Murjani.

This is after including employers’ Central Provident Fund contributions, he said on Tuesday (Jul 18), taking the stand for the second day in the High Court.

Murjani holds 50 per cent of the shares in Oon’s eponymous group of restaurants through his sole shareholding of Group MMM. Oon’s family is seeking either a court order to be able to purchase Group MMM’s shares, or for Violet Oon Inc to be wound up.

He had sought the reparations in 2019, as the family had allegedly increased its own salaries without the knowledge or approval of its business partner.

The trio agreed to return the entirety of their wages earned for the period, but are now seeking for the agreement to be invalidated. The S$1.55 million was to be repaid by Violet Oon Inc to Group MMM as if it were a loan, over a period of three years.

During cross-examination by Drew & Napier’s Meryl Koh, who represented Oon and her family, Murjani said that simple interest of 10 per cent per annum on the S$1.1 million in salaries had been factored into the reparations, bringing the total to S$1.25 million.

A subsequent S$300,000 “good faith” payment was tacked on to the reparations, bringing the total to S$1.55 million.

The additional S$300,000 had been offered by Oon’s son, Tay Yiming, in a bid to make Murjani cease his demands, Tay asserted in his own testimony on Jul 13.

In December 2014, Oon was paid a monthly salary of S$5,000; Tay Yiming, S$4,500; and daughter Tay Su-Lyn, S$1,000. By November 2018, Oon and her son were drawing S$8,000 each every month, and her daughter, S$5,000 a month, based on court documents.

Asked Koh: “Would you agree that (the Oon family) worked day to day, every day? So do you think they should get salaries?”

Murjani replied in the affirmative on both points, though with the caveat that they should receive “nominal” salaries. He also agreed with Koh’s subsequent assertion that the Oon family’s salary figures as at November 2018 were “not unreasonable”.

During the cross-examination, Koh went on to assert that Murjani found it was “reasonable, or it made sense”, for the Oon family to “empty out” their pockets and repay Group MMM the S$1.55 million in reparations.

“It wasn’t anything like what you’re describing,” said Murjani.

The lawyer also took issue with Murjani estimating the value of his introduction of “various senior bankers” to Violet Oon Inc at some S$100,000 in his affidavit, which she said was then used by Murjani in negotiating the S$1.55 million figure.

Some of those bankers included UOB deputy chairman and chief executive Wee Ee Cheong, and DBS group head of institutional banking Tan Su Shan, Murjani said on the stand.

In September 2018, Violet Oon Inc obtained a term loan of S$1 million from UOB – which Koh asserted the company obtained due to the Oon family putting up personal guarantees, as opposed to Murjani’s connections.

Asked Koh: “Do you think it’s incredible that you’re putting a value of S$100,000 for connecting, allegedly, your trusted friend, Mr Wee, or someone else at the time, to the company?”

“Not really... I was introducing the relationship and this was the first thing that happened,” replied Murjani.

The trial continues on Wednesday.