They paid the notice but still lost the case, here's the word that sank them
A financial firm that fired a worker for "dishonest" medical-claim misuse lost before Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey on 15 May 2026.
The case, JGP v JGQ, grew out of a group-wide review the employer began in December 2023 after a clinic, anonymised as Clinic X, generated a high volume of reimbursement claims for items that looked more like retail than medicine. Around 40 employees were dismissed. Eight took their employers to the tribunal, and six of those cases, all turning on the same reasoning, were heard together.
The claimant, referred to as Ms C, joined in September 2021 on a contract with three months' notice. Between March and September 2023 she submitted 62 claims totalling $9,989.64 for purchases that, she accepted, included vitamins, supplements, skincare, chicken essence and an electric toothbrush, none prescribed by a doctor she had never consulted at the clinic. She said colleagues and clinic staff had told her claims below a $200 threshold did not need itemising and could be submitted, and she offered to repay once told they were not in order.
A three-member disciplinary committee first recommended a warning and a full bonus cut, citing her junior position, clean record and what it called her "simple-minded" reliance on what she had been told. The employer's Global Head of HR queried that leniency against a dishonesty finding and asked the committee to reconsider. It reconvened the same day and, by a two-to-one majority, switched to termination. Ms C was dismissed with notice, later commuted to salary in lieu, and her internal appeal was never heard.
The employer argued that because it paid notice, the tribunal's only job was to test whether the stated reason was false, with internal process and comparisons off limits. The tribunal disagreed on both the law and the facts. It held that the statutory "due inquiry" safeguard attaches to the ground of misconduct, not the mode of dismissal, so paying notice did not switch it off. The inquiry itself was found adequate.
The dismissal failed on proof. Having branded the conduct dishonest, wilful and intentional, the employer had to prove that mental state, and the tribunal found it had not. The clustering of spends just under $200 was, the judge reasoned, exactly what compliant staff would do if they believed sub-threshold claims were allowed. "Patterns often admit of more than one explanation," he wrote. The judgment noted there was no falsified document, no concealment, no warning ignored, and a readiness to repay.
That left a lesser, negligent wrong: relying on workplace practice rather than the written policy. The tribunal held even that did not justify dismissal, because employees with comparable spending had received warnings and bonus reductions. "Parity is not a veto, but it is a cross-check on proportionality," the judge held, finding dismissal a step too far.
Ms C did not win everything. Her claim for a 2023 performance bonus was dismissed: the scheme was discretionary, no payout had vested, and conduct was a legitimate factor. On the wrongful-dismissal claim she was awarded $12,999 for loss of income, three months at $4,333, plus $4,333 for harm after a one-month mitigating reduction, totalling $17,332. With costs of $1,000 and disbursements of $70, the employer was ordered to pay $18,402 within 14 days.
An employer that reaches for words like "dishonest" in a dismissal letter takes on the burden of proving that state of mind, and treating like cases alike is what makes a dismissal stand.
