Landmark ruling reveals what 'due process' actually requires and what employers get wrong

A consultant neurosurgeon challenged his summary dismissal by Singapore Health Services, arguing he should have been given opportunity to respond to additional audit findings considered by the SingHealth Disciplinary Council (SDC) after the initial inquiry concluded.

The Appellate Division of Singapore's High Court dismissed his appeal in Tan Tung Wee Eddie v. Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(A) 12.

The court found the employer fulfilled its contractual obligation by convening a Committee of Inquiry (COI) where the employee could respond to misconduct allegations.

The subsequent consideration of additional findings by the SDC did not trigger a separate obligation to hear the employee's response, as the contract did not require it. The decision clarifies that due process rights in workplace investigations are determined by employment contract wording.

To understand what this means for how employers should conduct workplace investigations and disciplinary processes, HRD Asia spoke with Alvin Tan Yong Joon, managing director at Kinexus Legal LLC.

Why due process remains misunderstood

Despite being fundamental to workplace investigations, due process continues to be poorly understood by employers. The consequences extend beyond legal compliance.

"Due process is critical because poor management of it can cause an employer to breach its statutory obligations under the Employment Act 1968 and/or its contractual obligations with an employee," Tan says.

The misunderstanding stems from focusing on form over substance. "Employers who run into trouble often focus only on the completion of procedural steps. They fail to appreciate the underlying purpose, which is to ensure fairness," he explains.

"For example, since the goal of due process is to provide a fair process, a due inquiry panel may very well return a finding of 'substantiated', 'unsubstantiated', or even 'inconclusive' on an allegation of misconduct."

Yet, organizations often approach investigations with outcomes already in mind. "Some employers treat due process as a tool for confirming guilt rather than as a framework for impartial decision-making," Tan notes.

"In practice, this can lead to a 'pre-ordained outcome' or a 'hatchet job', which the Courts have warned against. The risk is higher when there is perceived pressure from the top to deliver a certain outcome. Those involved then treat due process as merely a procedural hurdle to overcome."

The broader impact of mishandling due process is also misunderstood. "Employers often fail to appreciate the impact that a breach can cause and hence the attention it deserves," Tan says.

"For example, bad handling of due process can cause a culture of mistrust amongst its workforce and reputational damage."

Reactions can come from unexpected sources. "I have known cases in which angry individuals mete out their own version of 'vigilante' justice, ranging from engaging in toxic watercooler gossip, to making allegations in mass anonymous emails or angry social media posts, or even sometimes false reports to the regulators, etc.," he explains.

"These angry individuals could be the employee being investigated, or the employee who raised the initial grievance, or a concerned bystander that is not even an employee. Hence it is important to get due process right."

What the Eddie Tan case reveals

The Singapore Health Services case provides specific guidance on how courts interpret contractual obligations around due process.

"The courts will scrutinise the employment contracts and policies to determine what the due process should or should not have entailed," Tan says.

"As a starting point, employers need to know what is in their contractual documents and understand how the wordings are interpreted legally. If not, they are going to be surprised when challenged."

The court in Eddie Tung held for the employer with respect to the employee’s argument that he has a right to respond to new data. "The court said that the SDC was not required to give the employee an opportunity to respond to new data that was introduced at the SDC stage," Tan says.

Context matters for applying this ruling. "Employers must not treat this as a blanket rule that employees never have such right or that panels never need to review or re-hear findings when new information arises,” he cautions.

“In this case, one reason the SDC did not need to do so is that the documents made it clear that it had no investigatory role. If however, an employer's policies state otherwise and the remit of a certain panel is broader, employers will need to reconsider their approach. Ultimately, it all comes down to the facts, such as whether the grounds for dismissal remain established despite new information, and the precise wordings of the contract and policies".

An important observation was made by the court. "The court in Eddie Tung observed that the employee never argued that the SDC had acted beyond its remit in considering data that the COI did not examine. As that argument was not raised, the court did not have to address this issue," Tan says.

"What we can take away though, is a reminder that panels must stay within their contractually defined roles, failing which a procedural breach can arise."

How to draft and apply procedures

The case reinforces the need for employers to carefully design and consistently follow internal procedures. Tan recommends specific steps.

"Ensure that procedures are tailored… Stock templates can do more harm than good, as they do not take into account organizational constraints. Clearly set out the responsibilities of each panel involved, so that no one exceeds their mandate. Ensure that relevant staff are familiar with and trained in advance how to carry out the procedures. Yearly refreshers help."

Organizations change over time, making periodic reviews essential. "Employers must be aware that the organization's size, complexity and industry's rules, can evolve over time. The existing wordings may no longer serve their needs and cause difficulty in compliance," he explains.

"Further, over time, an organization's actual practice can deviate from the policy wordings. Hence, do conduct a periodic audit to ensure alignment."

Common missteps in due inquiry

The "due" in "due inquiry" under the Employment Act often gets lost in practice. "The courts have noted that the more informal the process, the greater the risk that 'due inquiry' was not undertaken," Tan says.

"While many employers already have broad structures in place, effective due inquiry goes beyond just having a framework."

He identifies five common missteps. Panel selection failures occur when “panels are chosen solely based on roles/designations”.

This approach can overlook issues such as prior conflicts with the employee under investigation and cause neutrality issues. Issues of fairness arise when employers remain vague about the specifics of allegations, preventing employees from responding adequately.

Some panels evaluate facts in isolation without considering whether similar misconduct was previously waived. Others recommend decisions outside their contractual remit, such as summary dismissal when policy allows only written warnings.

Finally, poor documentation leads to what Tan calls "organizational forgetfulness, which can cause evidentiary problems when challenged, or downstream problems when similar acts of misconduct arise."

Following binding policies strictly

When internal policies become contractually binding, the standard for compliance is unambiguous.

"Employers must follow them strictly. The Eddie Tung case is a perfect example of how courts will closely examine the contractual wordings to determine if there has been a breach of due inquiry obligations," Tan says.

The quality of policy drafting becomes critical. "Given this, it is crucial to draft the processes well. A well-crafted policy should strike a good balance… It provides enough details to ensure procedural fairness and builds in flexibility to allow the employer to adapt to different circumstances. This balance must be a practical one tailored to the size and complexity of the organization."

Both extremes create problems. "If a policy is too rigid and mandates exact steps such as fixed timelines, specific panel composition, it can become a straitjacket, and minor or unavoidable deviations become grounds for a breach of contract," Tan explains.

"Conversely, if a policy is too broad, it can leave too much room for interpretation, making it difficult for panels to apply procedures as intended."

Digital age challenges

Modern work arrangements create new complications for due inquiry processes. Tan also designs and conducts a training for employers at the Singapore Management University (SMU) Academy on employment law in the digital age that addresses these issues. He identifies three broad challenge areas.

Cross-border work raises jurisdictional questions that become increasingly complex in globalized workforces. Which law applies when an employee working across borders faces due inquiry—the law governing the employment contract, or the law where the employee is based, or both?

Digital evidence requires careful handling. "Cross-border work raises tricky questions about digital forensics and surveillance. Employers must ensure that any investigation complies with all relevant laws, especially data protection regulations, which can differ in subtle but important ways across countries," Tan says.

Remote work complicates investigation logistics in ways that can compromise robustness. Maintaining confidentiality becomes much harder in remote or hybrid settings.

Social media creates additional risks. "Additionally, in today's digital age, there is also the risk of intentional disclosure. Information about an investigation can be leaked publicly, sometimes by the person being investigated or even by the complainant, often as a form of social media retaliation," Tan says.

"This makes it essential for organizations to have in place robust crisis management processes and to conduct due inquiry with such risks in mind."

Building capability for fairness

HR and legal teams need specific capabilities to ensure fairness in workplace investigations. Tan suggests three main areas.

Training matters because reading policy alone is insufficient. "In my experience training due inquiry teams, I have observed that many may not have conducted investigations or due inquiries before, so they do not understand how procedures play out in real-life situations," he says.

"Trainings and refreshers are also important because teams and personnel change over time, and time pressures can affect decision-making, especially in urgent cases."

Documentation practices require deliberate development. Good recordkeeping ensures decisions are defensible if challenged. Building a database of past cases promotes fairness and consistency, addressing what Tan calls ‘organizational forgetfulness’ from manpower turnover.

Continuous improvement through after-action reviews (AAR) allows organizations to assess what worked and update processes accordingly after each due inquiry.

Policy alignment across documents prevents gaps. "It is also critical to ensure that all relevant policies are aligned and work together seamlessly. Key policies such as grievance, disciplinary, code of conduct, and whistleblowing tend to be interconnected and hence must be internally consistent," Tan notes.

"Otherwise, issues that span across (inconsistent) policies can cause mishandling. Employers must also pay attention to IT and Personal Data Protection policies, as these are increasingly relevant for investigations involving surveillance or digital evidence."

The upcoming Workplace Fairness Act makes this more urgent. "With the Workplace Fairness Act coming into force and internal grievance policies becoming mandatory, the above will be all the more important," he says.

What the judgment reinforces

The Eddie Tan decision reinforces existing principles rather than creating new ones.

"In this case, the court held that there were no further obligations for the SDC to provide the employee another opportunity to respond to new evidence under the governing policies. My view is that this judgment reinforces what we already know, that precise contractual wordings do matter and that the court will look to these documents when assessing whether there has been a breach."

The practical implications remain significant. "It also highlights just how important it is for employers to be thoroughly familiar with what their policies say and follow them in practice," Tan says.

"This means that employers should not adopt policies simply because they appear sound or comprehensive, they must fit the specific needs of each workplace. For example, having several panel layers may not be practical if the organisation is small and lacks the right people to sit as such."

The Eddie Tan v Singapore Health Services decision reinforces that contractual wording determines due process obligations in workplace investigations.

Tan's analysis reveals employers commonly misunderstand due process by treating it as procedural compliance rather than an impartial decision-making framework, leading to predetermined outcomes and what he terms "organizational forgetfulness" from poor documentation.

For employers managing disciplinary processes, the takeaways are actionable: draft policies balancing fairness with practical flexibility, conduct regular audits ensuring practice matches policy wordings, train teams so they understand procedures in real-life situations, build case databases to promote consistency, conduct after-action reviews to continuously improve, and ensure interconnected policies remain internally consistent.