Singapore Employment Claims Tribunal probes “no reasons” dismissals

A recent decision by a Singapore Employment Claims Tribunal underscores the significant divergence between the common law and statutory approaches to wrongful dismissal. For the first time, a tribunal has concluded that a contractually compliant termination effected for "no reason" can nevertheless be "wrongful" in the statutory sense.

Details follow. Please note that leave to appeal has been granted.

The Employment Claims Tribunals ("ECT") in Singapore have begun to publish decisions, and it appears likely that this practice will prove highly impactful. The first published tribunal decision (handed down in May 2026) suggests that the statutory protection against wrongful dismissal – contrary to previous perception – significantly deviates from the position at common law. This, in combination with the subsequently published decision in JJF v JJG [2026] SGECT 9 ("JJF"), discussed below, has provoked much discourse.

The background

The statutory protection against dismissal "without just cause or excuse", or wrongful dismissal, is not new (see section 14 of the Employment Act 1968). Although this provision has been in place since 1973, judicial interpretation is only now emerging. (For many years, the statutory protection applied only to blue-collar workers and other lower-paid employees; as those claims were heard by the Ministry of Manpower which did not publish its decisions, there was little to no transparency around how the statute was applied in practice.)

In 2019, the law changed in two important respects: (1) statutory wrongful dismissal claims would be heard by the ECT; and (2) all employees (with limited exceptions) would be covered by the Employment Act 1968, and hence could become entitled to the benefit of the statutory protection.

Alongside the legislative changes, a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal was issued. These expressly state that so long as no reason is stated for a dismissal with notice, and the employee cannot show that the employer's intention was anything other than to terminate in accordance with the contract, a dismissal will not be wrongful; and employers have in practice relied on these guidelines.

However, after a lead period, the ECT has recently begun publishing its decisions, and it appears from the ECT decision in JJF that it may no longer be safe to rely solely on the guidelines; details follow.

The divergence

The common law position on dismissals has been viewed as clear: an employer giving contractual notice may legally terminate employment at any time, for any reason, or for none.¹ The courts will hesitate to circumscribe an employer's right to terminate, just as they do an employee's right to resign.² It has been held that even the implied term of mutual trust and confidence does not fetter the freedom to exit,³ and, where a claimant is unable to identify a contractual (or other) breach, the wrongful dismissal claim cannot be sustained at common law.⁴

In a major departure, the magistrate responsible for the first published ECT decision has taken the position that the statutory phrase, "dismissed without just case or excuse", indicates a need for the ECT to ask: what is the "cause or excuse" behind the dismissal, and was it a "just" one that warranted dismissal? That is a different inquiry from the common law wrongful dismissal test, where the focus is on contractual compliance.

The subsequent decision (of the same magistrate) in JJF further illustrates how the common law and statutory positions now seem to diverge. The position now expressed is this: even where an employer gives no reason for termination, and a claimant cannot prove an improper reason, a tribunal may still conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the dismissal was "without just case or excuse".

Facts in brief

In JJF, the employment relationship started uneventfully. The claimant joined on a monthly salary of SGD 9,000 (c. USD 7,070), successfully completed probation, received a year-end bonus of just over a month's salary and was awarded a pay increase to SGD 9,150. (c USD 7,190).

After about a year of employment, the claimant was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. A doctor's opinion was that this was likely to have been precipitated by long working hours and insomnia. It was later clarified that he was fit to work, with shorter hours recommended. The claimant was moved off his existing project to work on a tender, with more regular hours. Less than two months into the reassignment, and just a day after the tender was submitted, the employment was terminated with payment in lieu of notice.

The claimant brought a statutory wrongful dismissal claim at the ECT. He argued that it was apparent from all the circumstances that the dismissal must have been due to discrimination (which remains an improper reason for termination, independent of statutory discrimination claims which are set to arrive in Singapore after the Workplace Fairness Act 2025 takes effect, by the end of 2027). The employer's defence was that the claimant was dismissed in exercise of its contractual right to terminate and, in its words, "not for any particular reason".

The decision

The magistrate found that the claimant's claim of discrimination was not made out; but that did not conclude the matter. He also considered it necessary to inquire into the reasons behind the termination. He looked at the employment history: the employee had passed probation, received a bonus and an increment, and was still trusted with work. Nothing seemed out of place.

That was sufficient, in the magistrate's terms, to "call for an answer". Absent a satisfactory response, the magistrate would infer that the dismissal was more probably "without just cause or excuse".

The employer raised performance, suitability and operational considerations. The magistrate accepted that some performance concerns existed, but considered that none justified dismissal. The inference was therefore drawn, and the claimant succeeded, despite failing to prove the impropriety (discrimination) he had alleged.

The award of compensation

The statutory formula for wrongful dismissal compensation is settled.⁵ An ECT assesses two distinct components: (1) harm caused by the wrongful dismissal, using up to two months' pay as a base and adjustable by up to 50% for aggravating or mitigating factors; and (2) loss of income, capped at three months' pay. The total award remains subject to the statutory limit of SGD 20,000, or SGD 30,000 if the claim is union-assisted (c. USD 15,710 and USD 23,570) respectively).

Applying that framework, the magistrate first assessed harm to the former employee starting from a two-month salary base, reduced to 1.25 months for a mitigating factor (a limited instance of poor performance). No loss of income was awarded because the claimant could not establish how long his employment would have continued, or attribute a period of unemployment or reduced earnings to the dismissal. The neutral termination letter was also relevant, as it contained no allegation shown to have impaired his prospects. The final compensation awarded was SGD 11,437.50 (c. USD 8,986).

The suggested statutory framework

In a 760-paragraph decision spanning more than 330 pages, the magistrate suggested, and applied, the following framework to adjudicate statutory wrongful dismissal claims.

• The overarching inquiry is whether the dismissal fits within the statutory phrase “without just cause or excuse”. Contractual compliance alone would not be an answer. The question is deeper and looks at the “cause or excuse”, or reason, behind a dismissal, which must be “just”.
• Hence, even where no reason is given for termination, the bringing of a statutory wrongful dismissal claim will trigger a reasons-based inquiry.
• If a reason has been given, the ECT will test whether it (A) is factually established; (B) materially operated upon the decision to dismiss; and (C) carried sufficient weight to make dismissal a “just” response.
• If an employer gives no reason, the claimant may still seek to prove that a statutory wrongful dismissal has occurred by showing:
  • a positive wrongful reason (such as discrimination, retaliation, or an attempt to deprive the employee of a benefit); or
  • a negative case, i.e. given the circumstantial evidence, it should be inferred that, more probably than not, there was no sufficiently just cause or excuse.
• In relation to the negative case approach, a satisfactory employment record, or an absence of any concern raised contemporaneously, may suggest that the dismissal was more probably “without just cause or excuse”. The tactical (or evidential) burden may then shift to the employer (in the magistrate’s terms, this may “call for an answer” from the employer). Absent a satisfactory response, an inference may be drawn.

Looking ahead

This decision should not be taken as the final word on the subject. Leave to appeal has been granted and an appellate court may take a different approach. Other magistrates in later ECT cases may express different views.

The judgment ends with an invitation to Parliament to consider (amongst other things) whether the statutory phrase “without just cause or excuse” should remain. With the Employment Act 1968 under review, there would certainly be much to consider.

^{1 Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2020] 2 SLR 386 at [125].
2 Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2022] 1 SLR 1318 at [92].
3 Prashant Mudgal v SAP Asia Pte Ltd [2026] 3 SLR 914 at [158].
4 Seng Hock Chye Daniel v Denso International Asia Pte Ltd [2026] SGHCR 14.
5 Employment Claims Regulations 2017, regulations 17 and 17A, and the Second Schedule.}