Why letting probation quietly expire could still cost employers a month's pay
Justice Sushil Nair ruled on 24 August 2026 that a law firm owed an employee a month's notice despite his probation period lapsing.
The Singapore High Court's General Division dismissed an appeal by the firm, by upholding an Employment Claims Tribunal order that it pay its former supporting officer $2,857.14 in salary in lieu of notice, plus $30 in disbursements.
The employee was engaged under a letter of appointment dated 30 March 2023 and began work on 10 April 2023, subject to a three-month probation period due to run until 9 July 2023. The firm's Terms of Employment allowed either party to end the contract during probation by giving one month's prior written notice, a mechanism the clause labelled "Short Notice."
On 7 July 2023 the firm told the employee it had decided not to continue his service beyond probation, ending his employment on 9 July 2023 and offering a goodwill payment covering a further seven days' salary. The same clause had stated that "the staff shall not be entitled to any benefit or leave" during the probation period. The employee wrote back arguing he was owed a full month's notice regardless of his probation status; the firm replied that an expiry of probation was not a termination and required no notice.
The employee filed a claim with the tribunal on 27 September 2023 for a full month's salary of $3,000. A tribunal magistrate allowed the claim only in part in January 2024, finding the probation clause did not create a separate fixed-term contract, but pro-rating the payment to the 20 working days left once the termination letter was treated as short notice, producing the $2,857.14 figure.
On appeal, the firm argued that stipulating a probation period effectively created a contract for a specified period of time under section 9(1) of the Employment Act 1968, one that could simply expire without triggering notice obligations. Justice Nair disagreed. He found that the Terms of Employment, including their provision for annual salary reviews and leave entitlements that escalated with years of service, pointed to a single ongoing contract of service rather than a standalone fixed term.
He held that a probation clause is "not automatically a contract of service of a specified period of time" under the Employment Act, so the wider notice provisions continued to apply through the probation period.
The firm had also raised concerns about the employee's performance and punctuality during probation, which the employee disputed; the tribunal did not need to resolve those claims because no wrongful dismissal claim was brought.
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the tribunal's decision, and ordered that $2,887.14, comprising the $2,857.14 award and $30 in disbursements, be paid within one week. It also awarded the employee costs of the appeal, to be agreed between the parties or assessed on written submissions.
Justice Nair found that the probation clause did not, on its own, create a separate contract for a specified period of time. He held that the wider Terms of Employment, including provisions for annual salary reviews and leave entitlements that increased with length of service, treated the probation period as part of one continuous contract, not a fixed term that could lapse without notice.
