Wrongful dismissal before the Singapore Employment Claims Tribunals

Singapore’s first published ECT decision offers detailed guidance on wrongful dismissal framework.

In Singapore’s first published Employment Claims Tribunals (“ECT”) decision, an employee who had breached her employer’s reimbursement claims policy nevertheless succeeded in a wrongful dismissal claim. The employer characterised her conduct as dishonest, but the tribunal found that dishonesty was not made out on the evidence.

In JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1, a first-instance tribunal decision for which the employer has sought leave to appeal, the tribunal took the opportunity to provide detailed guidance on how wrongful dismissal claims are to be assessed. While the decision is subject to a pending appeal, it currently provides an important indication of how the ECT may approach such claims.

Facts in brief

The case arose from an internal investigation into a group of employees after the employer identified an usually high volume of reimbursement claims, submitted under its medical benefits policy, for non-medical retail items purchased from a particular clinic – including vitamins, supplements and skincare products.

One employee, anonymised as “Ms C”, had submitted 62 claims, including claims for chicken essence and, on one occasion, an electric toothbrush. Her claims totalled about S$10,000 over a period of roughly six months. Many were made on consecutive days and were often just below the S$200 no-itemisation threshold. Ms C had never consulted a doctor at that clinic.

Following the investigation, a significant number of employees received warnings (often accompanied by reductions to their bonuses), and around 40 employees were dismissed. Of those, Ms C and five others, who had been dismissed in a similar manner, brought wrongful dismissal claims before the ECT, which were heard by the same tribunal magistrate. Ms C had been terminated for “intentional misconduct involving dishonesty”, with three months’ notice, part of which was later paid out as salary in lieu.

All six claimants succeeded. The tribunal accepted that Ms C had committed a wrong, but only a “lesser wrong”. In its view, the pattern of claims below the itemisation threshold was consistent with a shared misunderstanding of the policy, and the employer had not discharged its burden of proving dishonesty. The tribunal found that Ms C had been negligent rather than dishonest, and that this level of negligence did not, in the circumstances, justify dismissal. It awarded her compensation of S$17,332, comprising three months’ loss of income and one month’s salary for as compensation for non‑pecuniary.

Key points of the tribunal’s decision

1. Two dismissal regimes.  In the civil courts, uncapped common law “wrongful dismissal” claims turn on whether the employer has complied with its contractual obligations; the reason for dismissal is generally irrelevant. In the ECT, in contrast, statutory wrongful dismissal claims (which are capped as to quantum) can succeed even where the employer has complied with the relevant contractual terms, if the dismissal is found to be “without just cause or excuse”.

2. Reasons for dismissal and the risks of remaining silent.  Where an employer gives a reason for dismissal, the burden lies on the employer to prove that reason, including any alleged dishonesty or other aggravating factor. Establishing only a lesser form of misconduct will not necessarily be sufficient to justify dismissal.

The tribunal opined, obiter, that where no reason is given, an employee may still succeed by showing that an “ordinary and reasonable employer” would not have dismissed in the circumstances. This may shift the evidential burden to the employer to demonstrate just cause or excuse – a burden that may be difficult to discharge if the employer has chosen to remain silent.

This approach, however, appears to sit uneasily with prevailing guidelines on wrongful dismissal. Specifically, an illustrative example given in those guidelines provides that where an employee cannot point to any indication that the employer’s intention was “anything other than termination in accordance with the contract”, a dismissal with notice is not wrongful.

3. Proportionality of the sanction. The tribunal considered that proving the stated reason is not the end of the analysis – there is also a question of proportionality. The employer must show that the misconduct was serious enough to justify dismissal. Parity, i.e. whether the same consequences apply to comparable employees, serves as a cross-check. In this case, employees who were found not to be dishonest were not dismissed. The tribunal reasoned that Ms C, being only negligent, likewise should not have been dismissed.

We note that this second-stage proportionality inquiry is not reflected in prevailing guidelines on wrongful dismissal, whose illustrations focus instead on “truth‑testing” – i.e. whether a stated reason for dismissal, if given, is proved – rather than on assessing the proportionality of dismissal as the chosen sanction.

4. Due inquiry, even where dismissal is on notice.  Where dismissal is for misconduct-related reasons, the statutory requirement of due inquiry applies even if the termination is with notice or with salary in lieu. The tribunal emphasised that the standard is modest: fair notice of the case, a real opportunity to respond, and fair-minded consideration. A more elaborate internal disciplinary procedure does not, in itself, raise that statutory threshold.

This approach appears to extend the reach of section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1968 beyond its express scope, as the provision is, on its face, confined to cases of dismissal without notice.

Practical takeaways for employers (while this decision remains good law)

• If a reason for dismissal is given, expect to have to prove that reason as framed if challenged.
• Always carry out and document a due inquiry for misconduct-related terminations, even where notice (or salary in lieu) is provided.
• In group investigations, apply frameworks and sanctions consistently across the cohort, and record the rationale for any differences in outcome.
• Findings on an employee’s state of mind should be supported by clear, positive evidence, and not rest solely on inference from circumstantial facts.
• Even if no reasons are communicated externally, maintain an internal record of the decision-making process, in case this needs to be adduced as evidence in any subsequent proceedings.