Employers must justify dismissal itself, not just misconduct, Singapore tribunal suggests in medical claims case
1. Background and facts
Following the judiciary's move to publish selected Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) decisions, JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1 is the first to be accompanied by written grounds.
The employer conducted a group wide review of outpatient medical reimbursement claims after concerns arose as to potential misuse of its medical claims policy (MCP), particularly in relation to claims submitted at a specific clinic. The review identified a significant number of claims for items such as supplements, vitamins and skincare products which were not reimbursable under the MCP.
Given the scale of the review, the employer tiered employees based on the volume and value of claims, and directed those in higher tiers to attend disciplinary inquiries. Employees in these tiers were assessed to have engaged in serious misconduct, including acting intentionally, wilfully and/or dishonestly in submitting impermissible claims. Approximately 40 employees were dismissed following the disciplinary process.
Eight employees commenced claims under s 14(2) of the Employment Act. Six proceeded to trial and all succeeded. In setting out the written grounds, the Tribunal considered one claimant’s case as representative of the remaining claims.
The employer's case was that the pattern of claims — including repeated submissions, clustering just below non itemisation thresholds, and the absence of any medical consultation — demonstrated that employees knew the claims were impermissible and had nevertheless sought reimbursement. The claimants maintained that they believed such claims were permissible, relying on workplace practice, representations by colleagues and clinic staff, and an understanding that claims below certain thresholds could be submitted without issue.
The ECT found that while the procedural requirement of due inquiry was largely satisfied, the employer failed to prove dishonesty or other aggravated forms of misconduct on the balance of probabilities. The objective patterns relied on were equally consistent with a broader workplace misunderstanding of the MCP, and did not suffice to establish a culpable mental state.
Although the Tribunal was prepared to find that some claimants had acted negligently in submitting impermissible claims, it held that dismissal was not justified. This was reinforced by inconsistent treatment across similarly situated employees and the absence of clear proof that the claimants had acted with knowledge of wrongdoing.
The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, noting that each was granted "substantial compensation (relative to the ECT’s monetary jurisdiction)," although claims for performance bonuses were rejected.
2. Doctrinal tensions and points of departure
At its core, the decision recasts the inquiry under s 14(2) of the Employment Act as going beyond the verification of the employer's stated reason for dismissal and instead asks whether the dismissal itself was warranted. This reflects a statutory framework that permits a broader evaluative inquiry than the common law, and is best understood as confined to wrongful dismissal claims brought under s 14(2), rather than as a restatement of the principles governing contractual termination.
First, the Tribunal treats s 14(2) as a self contained statutory cause of action focused on whether the dismissal was "without just cause or excuse." This differs from the common law framework, which is concerned with whether the employer was contractually entitled to terminate the employment. The distinction is not merely formal. By assessing both the sufficiency of misconduct and the appropriateness of dismissal, the Tribunal adopts a broader evaluative inquiry that sits outside the orthodox contractual approach and should not be viewed as a restatement of the common law position.
Second, the Tribunal takes the position that "due inquiry" under s 14(1) applies whenever dismissal is based on misconduct, even where termination is effected with notice. This shifts the focus from the form of termination to its underlying basis, and limits the extent to which employers can rely on notice provisions to avoid procedural scrutiny when faced with statutory wrongful dismissal claims.
Third, internal disciplinary frameworks are treated as evidential rather than determinative. While non compliance may weaken the employer's case, it does not set the legal threshold. This reflects the Tribunal's broader approach of focusing on the substance of the dismissal itself, rather than whether the employer acted within its own procedural or contractual frameworks
Fourth, the Tribunal adopts a two-stage analysis. The employer must first prove the facts underlying its stated reason for dismissal, including any alleged mental element, on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal then considers whether the proven misconduct justifies dismissal or whether a lesser sanction would suffice. Even where wrongdoing is established, dismissal may not follow. This second stage reflects the broader shift towards assessing whether the dismissal was substantively justified, rather than simply verifying the employer's stated reason.
Fifth, the Tribunal treats comparative treatment of employees as relevant at the second stage, as part of the proportionality analysis. While it does not affect whether misconduct is established, inconsistent outcomes between similarly situated employees may undermine the justification for dismissal. This again reflects an inquiry directed at the appropriateness of dismissal rather than its contractual validity.
3. Implications for misconduct dismissal under s 14(2)
The decision highlights several practical consequences for how misconduct dismissal may be assessed under s 14(2).
First, it points to a more intensive review under s 14(2) than many employers may expect. By separating the factual inquiry from a further assessment of whether the proven conduct justifies dismissal, the Tribunal effectively reassesses both the misconduct and the sanction. This reflects the broader evaluative inquiry identified above.
Second, the decision sits uneasily alongside the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal. The Guidelines focus on whether the employer can prove its stated reason for dismissal. They do not clearly contemplate a further proportionality assessment into whether dismissal was warranted, creating uncertainty as to how the Tribunal’s approach aligns with the broader statutory framework.
Third, the Tribunal's award of "substantial compensation" reflects the remedies available under the statutory framework. Compensation for claims brought under s 14(2) of the Employment Act (which in turn provides that such claims must be commenced pursuant to the Employment Claims Act) may be assessed more broadly and differs from the well-established common law position, where damages for wrongful dismissal are generally limited to salary and benefits for the contractual notice period.
Fourth, the decision underscores the risks of alleging dishonesty without strong evidence. The Tribunal was slow to infer a culpable mental state from patterns of conduct where alternative explanations remained plausible. Where dishonesty is not made out but some lesser wrongdoing is established, dismissal may be found excessive when assessed against that conduct.
Fifth, the allocation of the burden of proof under s 14(2) may affect how dismissal decisions are framed. Where misconduct is relied on in the statutory inquiry, the employer must establish the underlying facts, including any alleged mental element. This may increase evidential exposure where the evidence is equivocal.
4. Practical considerations for employers
The decision is currently on appeal before the High Court. In the meantime, employers should approach misconduct dismissals under s 14(2) with greater discipline.
First, avoid alleging dishonesty unless it can be clearly supported. Where the evidence is equivocal, the Tribunal may decline to infer knowledge or intent from patterns of conduct alone.
Second, treat comparable cases consistently. Differences in outcome between similarly situated employees may undermine the justification for dismissal.
Third, be prepared to justify the decision to dismiss, not just the underlying misconduct. Proven wrongdoing does not necessarily justify termination. Employers should consider whether dismissal is proportionate to the conduct, and ensure the basis for that decision can be explained and supported. Where a matter escalates to dismissal, the reasons for doing so should be clearly documented. Overstating the case may expose the dismissal to challenge.
More broadly, the decision suggests that s 14(2) permits a more evaluative inquiry in which both the conduct and the dismissal itself may be subject to closer scrutiny, as opposed to the narrower approach for wrongful termination claims under common law. Whether this approach will be affirmed on appeal remains to be seen. In the meantime, employers should proceed on the basis that both the factual foundation and the ultimate decision to dismiss must be capable of careful justification.
Edric Pan is Deputy Managing Partner, I-An Lim is a Senior Partner, Sean Sim is a Partner, and Anne Tan is a Senior Associate at Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP in Singapore.
