At a glance
- In Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services, the Appellate Division confirmed that employers do not need to restart due inquiry if new findings relate to misconduct already addressed through a fair disciplinary process.
- In Goh Hui En Rebecca v IG Asia, the High Court ruled that pursuing distinct employment-related claims in the civil courts, notwithstanding a prior decision of the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT), is not an abuse of process, even if the claims arise from the same facts.
- The decision highlights that employees may use multiple forums for different aspects of a dispute, and employers should be cautious when alleging procedural abuse.
Procedural fairness in disciplinary dismissals
In Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(A) 12, the Appellate Division of the High Court upheld the rejection of a wrongful dismissal claim on the grounds of misconduct. In that case, the sole issue on appeal was whether the employer was required to provide the employee with an opportunity to respond to additional audit results (which revealed further instances of the employee's unauthorised access to patient records), before deciding to terminate his employment.
The Appellate Division held that the employer was not contractually required to do so. This was because the further audit results did not introduce new allegations per se, but instead expanded on the misconduct already under investigation through the disciplinary process. As the employee had already admitted to the misconduct in question, the further audit results merely quantified the extent and severity of the misconduct. Altogether, the Appellate Division concluded that the dismissal was procedurally fair and consistent with the employer's internal disciplinary framework.
Key takeaway
Employers are not necessarily required to reconduct the due inquiry process and allow an employee the opportunity to respond if there are supplementary findings which relate to misconduct that have already been addressed through a fair and transparent disciplinary process.
Strategic use of forums in employment disputes: ECT vs civil courts
In Goh Hui En Rebecca v IG Asia Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 20, the Singapore High Court (HC) rejected an employer's application to strike out an employee's claim for breach of contract (for unpaid commissions), defamation and negligence.
The employee had previously succeeded in an ECT claim for payment of salary in lieu of notice. She subsequently initiated separate proceedings in the HC claim for the abovementioned causes of action. The HC held that this was not an abuse of process. The HC observed that the ECT was established as an accessible and efficient forum for resolving specified employment-related claims, such as unpaid salaries. While an employee is barred from seeking further relief for the same claim (ie claim for salary in lieu of notice) before another court for determination, they are not barred from bringing a different employment-related claim elsewhere, even if these claims arise from the same factual matrix or underlying event.
Key takeaway
Employees may legitimately seek quick relief at the ECT while reserving more complex or distinct claims for subsequent civil litigation, even if the claims arise from the same set of facts.
Employers should exercise caution before asserting abuse of process where employees pursue different aspects of an employment dispute in multiple forums, provided the claims are substantively distinct and jurisdictionally appropriate.
More to explore
