Singapore High Court reaffirms role of employment contracts in dismissals

Dismissals are often one of the most contentious areas in Singapore employment law. Employees expect a fair chance to defend themselves, while employers must protect their business and follow contractual procedures. 

In the recent Singapore case of Tan Tung Wee Eddie v. Singapore Health Services [2025] SGHC(A) 12, the Appellate Division of the High Court provided a crucial clarification on dismissal procedures, reminding employers and employees that the employment contract is paramount. 

This ruling comes at a time when disciplinary processes are under close scrutiny in regulated industries such as healthcare, finance, and technology, where data security and compliance lapses can have serious consequences. 

Dr. Tan, a neurosurgeon, was dismissed for a “pattern of unauthorised access” of patient records. He had admitted to this misconduct during an initial Committee of Inquiry (COI), where he was given a chance to respond. 

However, when deciding on the final penalty, a higher-level SingHealth Disciplinary Council (SDC) considered a new data audit showing even more breaches. Dr. Tan was not given an opportunity to respond to this new evidence and argued this made his dismissal wrongful. 

Contractual right to be heard 

The court upheld the dismissal, siding with the employer and approving the dismissal. It found that the employee already had his contractual right to be heard during the initial inquiry. The company's policies did not require a second hearing for new evidence uncovered later. Furthermore, the court noted that even without considering the new audit, there was already more than enough proof to justify firing him. 

The judgment drew a clear line between the two stages of the disciplinary process: 

• Investigation (The COI): This is where the facts are established and the employee must be given due process and a right to be heard. This was done correctly. 

• Sanctioning (The SDC): This body's role was to review the COI's findings and decide on the appropriate penalty. 

The court found that since the grounds for dismissal (gross misconduct via data breach) had already been properly established in the first stage where Dr. Tan participated and admitted guilt, the contract did not require the employer to grant another hearing on additional evidence used only to confirm the severity of the punishment. 

Keys to disciplinary procedures 

This decision provides employers with several takeaways: 

• Design clear procedures. Separate the fact-finding stage from the penalty decision stage. This structure gives legal certainty and helps avoid challenges. 

• Draft carefully. Employment contracts and staff handbooks should set out disciplinary steps in detail. Courts will rely on these documents. 

• Document every step. Records of investigations, employee responses, and disciplinary decisions can make or break a defence if a claim is brought. 

• Think about industry context. In highly regulated fields like healthcare and finance, procedures should be especially robust. 

For employees, the key message is that your main chance to be heard is during the investigation stage. Once facts are established, employers may not be obliged to reopen hearings even if additional evidence emerges. 

Employees should: 

• Take any Committee of Inquiry or internal investigation very seriously. 

• Ensure they are represented or advised when responding. 

• Review their employment contracts and HR policies to understand what procedural safeguards apply. 

Clarity in employment contracts, policies 

This case also reflects broader themes in today’s workplace: 

• Data security breaches are increasingly grounds for dismissal. 

• Digital audits make it easier for employers to uncover misconduct after the fact. 

• AI and compliance tools may generate new evidence late in the process, raising similar questions about whether employees must be re-heard. 

Employers should update their policies to anticipate these developments. Employees, meanwhile, should understand that their digital activity leaves a trace that may be used in disciplinary proceedings. 

This latest decision underscores that in Singapore, clarity in contracts and policies is the ultimate safeguard. Employers who separate investigation from sanctioning and follow their own processes will likely be protected. Employees should recognise that their strongest chance to be heard is early, at the investigation stage. 

As workplaces grapple with new challenges, from cybersecurity breaches to AI-driven audits, this case offers timely guidance. It is that fairness is defined by the contract, and both employers and employees ignore that at their peril. 

Mohammed Reza is a Disputes Partner and Head of the International Arbitration Practice at Withers in Singapore.