Case watch: Key takeaways from the Eddie Tan Tung Wee v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd case – contractual due process in employment disciplinary proceedings

Share this:

Workplace investigations are high on the list of “least favourite things to do” for HR and legal professionals, and management. However, it is inevitable that companies will from time to time find themselves having to conduct investigations due to suspected employee misconduct, whistleblowing, or even grievance handling to name a few.

Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(A) 12 is a recent case which provides guidance on the scope of contractual due process when it comes to investigations into employee misconduct and disciplinary proceedings resulting in termination.

Introduction

In the conduct of investigations, the guiding principle can be simply distilled into the cardinal principle of – “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you”. Employers often focus too much on vindicating an alleged victim, or in finding fault, that they forget about ensuring the fairness of the process.

Due process (sometimes known as due process of law) refers to the legal requirement of allowing a respondent the right to be heard concerning allegations made against him / her.

In the employment context, particularly for misconduct and disciplinary proceedings, this is a statutorily enshrined requirement under section 14 of the Employment Act 1968, where an employer may only summarily dismiss an employee on the grounds of misconduct after a “due inquiry”. The guidelines from the Ministry of Manpower of Singapore (“MOM”) also state that as part of this “due inquiry”, the employee should have the opportunity to present their case, or be given a chance to be heard.

The Singapore High Court in Long Kim Wing v LTX-Credence Singapore Ptd Ltd [2017] SGHC 151 has also clarified that this requirement of a “due inquiry” “means something more than just the making of inquiries and the conduct of an investigation” and that the employee concerned should be “informed about the allegation(s) and the evidence against him so that he has an opportunity to defend himself by presenting his position”. Employers would do well to bear this in mind.

As the statutory requirement of a “due inquiry” nor the guidelines from the MOM prescribe or mandate any formal procedure, this is ultimately up to each employer given each circumstance and the misconduct in question. Most employers set out internal investigation and disciplinary procedures and policies and incorporate this into their employment contracts – this thus provides for contractual due process based on said procedures / policies.

Case in Brief

In the case itself, the Appellant, Dr. Tan Tung Wee Eddie (“Dr Tan”), had claimed he had been wrongfully dismissed on that basis that his employer, Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd (“SingHealth”) purportedly did not accord him due process in allowing him to respond to additional evidence considered by the SingHealth Disciplinary Council (“SDC”), which had been considered as part of the eventual decision to summarily dismiss him for misconduct.

The Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore (“AD”) dismissed Dr Tan’s appeal on the grounds that:

  1. SingHealth did indeed accord Dr Tan due process by convening a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the misconduct in question, and it was during the investigation that Dr Tan was informed of the allegations and evidence against him and given a chance to be heard;
  2. SingHealth’s internal policies (the “COI Policy”) provided for the due process at the COI level which was duly followed by the COI – as part of this, the COI made the finding of misconduct after according Dr Tan due process, while the SDC had the responsibility of reviewing the COI’s recommendation / finding as to the appropriate disciplinary sanction;
  3. The contractual obligation owed by SingHealth to Dr Tan under the COI Policy thus was fulfilled once he was afforded due process at the COI level; and
  4. The scope of the contractual due process under the COI Policy did not extend to the SDC level or the evidence considered by the SDC.
Key Takeaways

As can be seen from the AD’s reasons for dismissing Dr Tan’s appeal, the Singapore Courts do give effect to the internal investigation and disciplinary policies and ultimately, the case turned on what was stated in SingHealth’s COI policy.

Thus, it is therefore incredibly important for employers to examine their own internal investigation and disciplinary procedures and policies, particularly in the following respects:

  1. The policy / procedure needs to adhere to the statutory requirement of a “due inquiry” which the Singapore Courts have already stated includes affording the employee a fair chance to be heard by informing him / her of the allegations and evidence against him / her;
  2. The Singapore Courts would hold the employer to their own policy / procedure – the practical lesson thus is that:
    1. One’s policy / procedure should be practical and realistic where the employer can actually execute the procedure in reality;
    2. The policy / procedure should also be clear as to the responsibility of each level; and
    3. The policy / procedure needs to be followed in practice so as to defend against a contractual breach of due process.

The starting point therefore is for employers to first have an investigation and disciplinary policy. This is to protect them as much as it is to protect the integrity of any investigation conducted.

Next, employers should ensure that the relevant personnel (usually HR or legal) are trained to conduct investigations – having a robust and structured investigation and disciplinary policy is pointless if it is not properly executed.

For queries on drafting an appropriate policy, employee training, or any investigations related matters, you may contact our

Francis Chan, Executive Director
Alexius Chew, Managing Associate
Kenneth Loh, Senior Associate