JGP v JGQ

JGP v JGQ

The tribunal found that the statutory 'due inquiry' requirement was satisfied, that the respondent failed to prove the aggravated mental element (dishonesty, wilfulness or wilful blindness) alleged in the dismissal notice, that the claimant had instead negligently submitted impermissible claims but such lesser...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] SGECT 1
Parties
Claimant: JGP; Respondent: JGQ
Court
Employment Claims Tribunals
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
15 May 2026
Case Number
ECT/11019/2024
Procedural Posture
Employment — Wrongful Dismissal (s 14 Ea) / Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's s14(2) claim established; claimant awarded compensation; contractual bonus claim dismissed; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedures, Due Inquiry, Wrongful Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Discretionary Bonus Entitlement, Remedies — Reinstatement and Compensation, Parity and Comparators
Source Language
english
Employment Law Disciplinary Procedures Due Inquiry Wrongful Dismissal Burden of Proof Discretionary Bonus Entitlement Remedies — Reinstatement and Compensation Parity and Comparators

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JGP

Claimant

JGQ

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment — Wrongful Dismissal (s 14 Ea) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 14(1) 'due inquiry' applies where dismissal is for misconduct even if notice or salary in lieu is given
  2. 2 Whether the ECT's task under s 14(2) is confined to testing the falsity of the stated reason or is a de novo merits inquiry
  3. 3 Whether an employer's contractual disciplinary framework and internal parity are legally relevant to a s 14(2) claim

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the statutory 'due inquiry' requirement was satisfied, that the respondent failed to prove the aggravated mental element (dishonesty, wilfulness or wilful blindness) alleged in the dismissal notice, that the claimant had instead negligently submitted impermissible claims but such lesser wrongdoing did not constitute 'just cause or excuse' for dismissal given the wider context and inconsistent treatment of comparators, and awarded compensation (loss of income and harm) while dismissing the bonus claim.

Court Disposition

Claimant's s14(2) claim established; claimant awarded compensation; contractual bonus claim dismissed; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant loss of income of SGD 12,999 within 14 days
  • Respondent to pay claimant harm compensation of SGD 4,333 within 14 days