The decision in JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1 (“JGP v JGQ”) represents a significant shift in ECT jurisprudence which materially raises the evidential and procedural standards for employers where claims are brought under section 14(2) of the EA. The key shifts in practice can be summarised below:
- Heightened evidential burden for employers– employers must prove the mental element e.g., dishonesty alleged and whether it is proportionate;
- Due inquiry becomes essential in practice – even where notice (or salary in lieu of notice) is given, employers must conduct due inquiry including giving the employee notice of the case and opportunity to answer;
- Consistency in disciplinary outcome – employers must ensure coherent sanction framework and document clear reasons for deviations; and
- Careful framing of reasons for dismissal – overstating reasons for dismissal e.g., allegations of dishonesty increase litigation risk. The decision arguably creates an incentive for employers not to state reasons to avoid the evidential burden.
JGP v JGO is currently pending appeal and it remains to be seen whether the higher court will endorse the two-stage framework articulated therein. However, until a decision is rendered for the appeal, employers will have to wrestle with these uncomfortable and novel developments and take note of the practice shifts as it conducts its business.
Please find the full update attached.