Beauty salon wins suit against manager who coerced staff for free facials, pocketed money
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 10 Oct 2025
Author: Selina Lum
A beauty salon manager exploited her boss' absence for cancer treatment to engage in misconduct, such as getting free treatments.
The manager of a beauty salon outlet, who took advantage of her boss’ absence for cancer treatment to commit various wrongdoings at the workplace, has been ordered by a district court to pay about $71,000 in damages to her employer.
Apart from being habitually late and absent, Ms Tan Mong Ngoh, who is also known as Anna, coerced other staff to perform facials and massages on her for free during working hours.
She also pocketed money meant for treatment packages after convincing customers to make payment to her own bank account by offering them perks.
The salon, De Beaute, sacked her and sued her in 2020 after hiring a lawyer to carry out an independent investigation into her misconduct.
In a judgment on Oct 8, District Judge Clement Seah awarded various sums to De Beaute, including $57,134.22 for the unauthorised facials and massages that Ms Tan received and $6,000 for customers’ monies she misappropriated.
The judge also accepted De Beaute’s claim for $2,415.65 arising from Ms Tan’s absence from work on 17 Mondays, and for $4,420.78 in relation to a shortfall of 31 working days.
Ms Tan first worked for De Beaute in 2003 as a beauty therapist but was sacked in October 2014.
According to the judgment, she “showed a propensity for insubordination”, failed to issue invoices to customers, and despite various warning letters, started to leak confidential information to third parties.
In February 2017, the company rehired her as the manager of its outlet at Singapore Shopping Centre.
De Beaute, which is run by Mr Leo Meng Foo and his wife, Ms Cori Teo, said it re-employed her out of goodwill because she pleaded for a job.
But Ms Tan claimed she was “invited” to rejoin the company because she was good in sales.
Ms Tan’s misconduct was first discovered in August 2020 when staff complaints were surfaced to the company’s management.
From 2018 to 2020, she instructed therapists to perform weekly massages and facials on her for free during working hours, with each session lasting three hours.
Ms Teo was away for cancer treatment during most of this period.
Four therapists noted in their personal notebooks the occasions on which the free treatments were carried out.
One testified in court that she made the records in 2018 for her own reference in case she needed to “let the boss know”.
Another said that she recorded the entries on the day of the treatment while she was on the bus on her way home.
Ms Tan did not deny that she had received treatments from the staff, but challenged the number of times, the duration and purpose of the sessions.
She initially claimed that the treatments were part of training sessions.
After the salon’s lawyer, Mr Gavin Neo from WongPartnership, pointed out that training was not part of her job scope, she recharacterised them as “testing” sessions.
Ms Tan, who was represented by Ms Diana Foo from Legal Eagles, also argued that the notebook entries lacked details about the treatments carried out.
However, the judge said the brevity of the records corroborated the therapists’ accounts that they merely wanted to keep an informal record of the treatments.
The judge accepted the therapists’ explanation that they only performed a single type of treatment on her.
On the other hand, Ms Tan’s “inconsistent and shifting accounts and explanations” for the treatments spoke volumes about her lack of credibility as a witness, he said.
De Beaute also claimed three sums of $4,000, $500 and $1,500 paid by a customer who had checked on her packages in November 2020 after Ms Tan was placed on garden leave.
The customer discovered that the sums she had transferred to Ms Tan’s personal bank account between 2019 and 2020 were not received by the salon.
She said Ms Tan promised her additional treatments and a promotional package for selected VIP customers if she paid the sums to her personal bank account.
Ms Tan contended that the $4,000 payment was for a second-hand black Chanel bag the customer bought from her, the $500 was for a small Louis Vuitton pouch and the $1,500 was for a facial machine.
The judge preferred the customer’s testimony, and found that Ms Tan had misappropriated the sums.
Ms Tan also gave unauthorised free upgrades to customers without charging payment for the more expensive treatments.
As there was insufficient evidence to prove the quantum of losses, the judge awarded only nominal damages of $1,000.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
3137