Singapore Employment Claims Tribunal clarifies law on wrongful dismissals in JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1

In a landmark decision, the Employment Claims Tribunal (the “ECT”) established a structured framework for assessing wrongful dismissal claims under section 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968 (the “EA”). The case arose from the dismissal of an employee for alleged dishonesty in submitting medical reimbursement claims. The ECT found that the employer had failed to prove the aggravated mental element it alleged and that, even on the lesser wrong established, dismissal was disproportionate given the systemic context, the employee’s profile, and inconsistency of treatment across the affected cohort. This decision offers important guidance to employers on framing grounds for dismissal, conducting due inquiry, ensuring proportionality, and maintaining parity in disciplinary outcomes.

Facts

In December 2023, the Respondent-Employer (the “Respondent”) conducted a group-wide review of employee reimbursement claims under its Medical Claims Policy (the “MCP”). The review revealed that numerous employees had submitted claims for non-medical retail purchases at a particular clinic (“Clinic X”). Approximately 40 employees were dismissed for having “intentionally, wilfully and/or dishonestly committed serious breaches” of the MCP.

The Claimant (“Ms C”) submitted 62 reimbursement claims totalling SGD 9,989.64 for purchases at Clinic X, mostly comprising vitamins, supplements, and skincare items. The Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee (the “Committee”) found that Ms C had committed a serious breach of policy intentionally and dishonestly. Nevertheless, given Ms C’s junior position, clean record, full repayment, and her “simple-minded” reliance on colleagues and clinic staff, the Committee initially recommended a warning letter with a 100% reduction of her 2023 performance bonus. However, following concerns raised by the Respondent’s global Head of Human Resources (“HR”), the Committee revised its recommendation to termination.

Consequently, Ms C’s employment was terminated with three months’ notice, later brought forward with salary in lieu. The termination letter issued to Ms C stated that the decision was based on her “intentional misconduct involving dishonesty” and a “serious breach of the MCP”. Her internal appeal was declined by the Respondent.

The Claim

Ms C filed a wrongful dismissal claim against the Respondent in the ECT under section 14(2) of the EA.The three main grounds of her claim are summarised below. 

1. First, she alleged that her Clinic X claims were submitted under a genuine belief that they were permissible, and that dismissal was not justified even if some misconduct was found.
2. Second, she contended that there were lapses in the “due inquiry” process as required under section 14(1) of the EA and in the contractual procedures stipulated in the Respondent’s own disciplinary framework.
3. Third, Ms C also raised a contractual claim for her 2023 performance bonus, alleging that the non-award of her bonus was not in good faith, but “a punitive sequel to an already-infirm disciplinary outcome”.

The Tribunal’s Findings

The ECT found that Ms C had indeed been wrongfully dismissed but dismissed her claim for the 2023 performance bonus:

First, the ECT drew a distinction between wrongful dismissal under the common law and under the statutory regime. While the common law action is concerned with whether the employer terminated the employment contract in accordance with its terms, section 14(2) of the EA asks whether the dismissal was “without just cause or excuse”. This means that even where a termination complied with contractual requirements, the dismissal may still be challenged before the ECT if the employee contends it lacked substantive justification. 

Second, the ECT held that where misconduct forms the basis for dismissal, the requirement for “due inquiry” under section 14(1) of the EA applies even where an employer terminates with notice or salary in lieu. “Due inquiry” is an objective, fact-sensitive standard requiring adequate notice of the case, a genuine opportunity to respond, and open-minded consideration before fixing on misconduct as the ground. A contractual disciplinary framework does not elevate this standard, though failure to follow an internal process may undermine confidence in the reliability of the employer’s case. 

Employers must therefore ensure compliance with any applicable internal frameworks. That said, satisfying the “due inquiry” requirement does not in itself prove “just cause or excuse” for dismissal, nor does its absence automatically establish a claim under section 14(2). 

The Test for ‘Just Cause or Excuse’

The ECT set out a two-stage test for assessing whether an employer’s stated reasons for dismissal amount to “just cause or excuse”:

Stage 1: Truth. Did the misconduct alleged by the employer (including any mental element it relied on, such as dishonesty or wilfulness) occur? 

Stage 2: Sufficiency. Do the proven facts, viewed in context, justify dismissal rather than a lesser sanction?

The ECT also outlined two important guiding principles in applying the test:

1. The Burden of Proof. Where an employer states reasons for dismissal, the burden is on the employer to show that those reasons amount to “just cause or excuse”. If the stated reasons are not proven to that level but the evidence establishes a lesser wrong within the same gravamen, the ECT may consider that lesser basis provided it was fairly put to the employee before dismissal, coheres with the core account provided in the notice of dismissal, and is something the employee had a fair chance to address. In practice, employers should frame grounds for dismissal accurately and proportionately, as overstating the severity of misconduct (e.g., alleging dishonesty where only negligence is established) may result in the employer failing to discharge its burden of proof.
2. Parity of Treatment. Parity of treatment is distinct from Stage 1 (truth) above. Parity of treatment comes in once misconduct is established and has a bearing on proportionality. This means that like cases should be treated alike unless principled distinctions (such as seniority, degree of participation, prior record, candour and cooperation, or trust-sensitivities) justify a different outcome. Employers should clearly document such distinctions on paper if differential treatment is applied.

Application to the Facts

Applying the two-stage framework above, the ECT addressed four determinative questions: (i) whether the dismissal was preceded by adequate “due inquiry”; (ii) whether the dismissal was supported by “just cause or excuse”; (iii) the appropriate remedy; and (iv) whether Ms C was entitled to a 2023 performance bonus.

Due Inquiry

On due inquiry, the ECT found that the statutory minimum under section 14(1) was satisfied. Ms C had been given notice of the allegations against her, afforded a hearing before a three-member Committee, and the Committee had considered her explanations before reaching its conclusions. The ECT emphasised that “due inquiry” is a practical, substance-over-form standard — it does not require trial-like formality, nor does it mandate an internal appeal. However, the ECT noted two analytical limitations in the Committee’s reasoning: it did not adequately grapple with the factual uncertainties (the prevailing understanding of the MCP within the organisation and the influence of clinic practices on staff behaviour), and it inferred dishonesty from the facts without engaging those uncertainties. While these were not procedural defects sufficient to vitiate due inquiry, they tempered the weight the ECT accorded to the Committee’s conclusions on dishonesty.

Just Cause or Excuse

The ECT applied the two-step test in regard to whether the dismissal was supported by “just cause or excuse”. At Stage 1, the ECT found that the Respondent had not proved the mental element it alleged — dishonesty, recklessness, or wilful blindness. The Respondent relied primarily on the pattern of Ms C’s claims (frequency, clustering just below the non-itemisation threshold, and aggregate quantum), but the ECT held that these patterns were equally consistent with a cohort-wide misunderstanding shaped by non-itemised invoices and an internal “sub-$200” heuristic. There was no affirmative indicator that Ms C knew her claims were impermissible — no training acknowledgment, no warning she accepted and ignored, no attempt at concealment, and no admission. Significantly, the ECT observed that the Committee’s own characterisation of Ms C as “simple-minded” and its initial recommendation of a warning (rather than dismissal) sat awkwardly with a finding of dishonesty. 

However, the ECT went further to find that a lesser wrong was established: negligently submitting impermissible claims by relying on prevailing practice rather than the formal policy. At Stage 2, the ECT held that this lesser wrong did not, in the circumstances, amount to “just cause or excuse” for dismissal. Three features were decisive: (i) the systemic context — a widespread practice around non-itemised receipts and the $200 threshold explained, though did not excuse, the negligence; (ii) Ms C’s junior position, clean record, and the Committee’s own initial view that non-dismissal was warranted; and (iii) parity — other employees with comparable conduct profiles had received warnings and bonus reductions rather than dismissal, and the Respondent had not articulated a principled basis for singling out Ms C for a harsher outcome. 

Remedy

The ECT awarded Ms C compensation under two heads. For “loss of income”, it awarded three months’ salary (SGD 12,999), representing the post-notice earnings shortfall caused by the wrongful dismissal. The ECT found that Ms C had remained unemployed for a sustained period and had faced difficulty securing employment due to the circumstances of her dismissal. For “harm”, the ECT started from a conventional base of two months but applied a one-month reduction to reflect Ms C’s own negligent contribution, resulting in an award of SGD 4,333. The total compensation was SGD 17,332. 

Performance Bonus

The ECT dismissed Ms C’s claim for performance bonus. The governing documents framed the bonus as discretionary, and there was no evidence that the Respondent had committed to paying a particular quantum. The ECT also found that the discretion was not exercised in bad faith. Even though dishonesty was not proved, the Committee had initially proposed a warning with a 100% bonus reduction, which was recognisably tied to the Respondent’s framework treating conduct-related concerns as a risk factor in bonus setting. Importantly, the ECT confirmed that a finding of wrongful dismissal under section 14(2) does not automatically translate into a right to a prior-year performance bonus — the two inquiries address different questions. 

This case illustrates the real risk of “over-alleging” in the disciplinary context. The Respondent’s decision to frame the dismissal as founded on dishonesty — rather than misconduct simpliciter — ultimately proved to be its undoing, as the ECT found the evidence insufficient to support that aggravated characterisation. Employers should carefully calibrate the language used in termination letters and disciplinary findings to reflect what the evidence can actually support and ensure that parity of treatment across similarly situated employees is documented and legally defensible.

Key Takeaways

This decision is a significant development in Singapore employment law, establishing a structured framework for the ECT to assess wrongful dismissal claims under section 14(2) of the EA. 

Employees can challenge a dismissal for being “without just cause or excuse” even where the termination complied with contractual terms.

Where an employer provides in writing reasons for dismissal, the burden falls on the employer to prove those reasons. In the event of a dismissal, employers should:

1. frame the grounds of dismissal clearly, carefully and proportionately;
2. be prepared to provide the evidentiary or documentary basis for the stated reason(s) for dismissal, especially to explain why dismissal was justified;
3. carry out a thorough and proper due inquiry in accordance with company policy and the employment contract where misconduct forms the reason for dismissal; and
4. ensure consistency in disciplinary outcomes across similarly situated employees and document reasons for deviations.

Thorough contemporaneous documentation in all employment decisions is essential. Failure in documentation, process, or consistency may weaken the employer’s position and increase the risk of legal or reputational liability. 

Employers should consider conducting a review of their existing disciplinary policies, procedures, and record-keeping practices to identify and address any gaps.

As the decision is pending appeal, it remains to be seen whether the two-stage test laid down by the ECT will be upheld, modified or overturned by a higher court. In the meantime, employers should treat the ECT’s guidance as a practical benchmark and ensure that both the factual basis for any employee dismissal and the choice of dismissal as the appropriate sanction can withstand judicial scrutiny.

Companies that operate in Singapore should also be mindful that this decision may influence the approach of the ECT in future cases involving other forms of employee misconduct beyond dishonesty. Reviewing and stress-testing your disciplinary processes against the framework set out in this decision — including the adequacy of fact-finding, proportionality of sanctions, and consistency of outcomes — is a prudent step that can help mitigate the risk of successful wrongful dismissal claims.

*The authors would like to thank Nikki Ang, practice trainee at CMS Holborn Asia, and Jess Tan, for their contribution to the publication of this article.