EDDIE TAN TUNG WEE v SINGAPORE HEALTH SERVICES PTE LTD

Facts

Dr Eddie Tan Tung Wee was a neurosurgeon employed by Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd at the National Neuroscience Institute. During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, which stopped doctors moving between hospitals, he was stationed at Sengkang General Hospital, while a slightly junior colleague, Dr Chen, was at Singapore General Hospital and gained more exposure to skull base surgery, a subspecialty both wanted. Dr Tan complained repeatedly that Dr Chen had acted dishonestly and that department heads showed favouritism, and later alleged a conspiracy and, after a patient died, a criminal act. A review panel and two committees of inquiry found his allegations of favouritism and misconduct unsubstantiated. The second committee found he had accessed a patient's records without authority.

A further committee investigated his access to patient records. Dr Tan admitted a pattern of unauthorised access, saying he acted on conscience to expose unethical practice. The committee recommended a warning, but a later audit showed he had accessed the records of 72 patients on 103 occasions without authorisation, including some after being told to stop. The disciplinary council dismissed him on 14 March 2022 for breaching his contractual obligation not to access confidential patient information. He sued in Originating Claim No 361 of 2023 for wrongful dismissal and negligence, quantifying his claimed loss of future earnings at $4,442,570.53.

Issues

1. Whether Dr Tan was justified in accessing the records of patients not under his care, on grounds of consent, an iniquity exception, the medical ethical code or whistleblower protection.
2. Whether the employer breached due process or contractual procedures in dismissing him.
3. Whether the employer was negligent in deciding that he had breached patient confidentiality and in dismissing him.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that the employer was fully justified in dismissing Dr Tan and was not negligent. He was ordered to pay costs to be assessed if not agreed. His request for his name to be redacted was irrelevant and would not have succeeded in any event.

Reasoning

Dr Tan admitted the access and knew it was not permitted. His reliance on patient consent was unpleaded and unsupported: the hospital consent forms limited access to the treating team, and assumed consent applies to emergencies, not to a case where he simply chose not to ask. The court called this an afterthought. The iniquity exception relates to legal professional privilege, and the confidentiality here belonged to patients who had done nothing wrong. The ethical code's provision on disclosure did not permit a doctor to access records of patients not under his care; another part expressly forbade it, as did his contract. The duty to report colleagues requires reporting a reasonable belief to the authorities, not investigating personally, and the employer's policy said staff should not investigate suspected misconduct themselves. Whistleblower protection did not arise because he was dismissed for unauthorised access, not for raising concerns.

On process, the employer did not have to refer the matter to the Singapore Medical Council, as the dismissal was a contractual matter. Rules of natural justice do not apply to private employment contracts absent an express term. A committee had inquired and Dr Tan conceded he had ample opportunity to explain himself; nothing required the disciplinary council to hear him, allow counsel or cross-examination, or provide an appeal. A note in the council's minutes about his COVID test was unrelated to the decision. The negligence claim failed because the dismissal was justified.

The court observed that the claimant's harm to his career was self-inflicted, and that patient safety concerns should be raised with the relevant authorities rather than pursued by breaching confidentiality.

From the judgment