JHU v JHV
Outcome
Claim allowedI allowed the claim in full and awarded the claimant the sum of $20,000. In addition, I ordered the respondent to pay the claimant $400 in costs and $60 in disbursements.
Source: [2026] SGECT 2, Employment Claims Tribunals, decided 1 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | Employment Claims Tribunals |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Joel Tan |
| Charges / claim | Employment Law, Evidence |
| Outcome | Claim allowed |
| Sentence / award | $20,000 |
Source: [2026] SGECT 2, Employment Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
JHU v JHV [2026] SGECT 2, decided by Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan on 1 July 2026, concerned an unpaid overtime pay claim brought under s 38(4) of the Employment Act 1968 by a Bangladeshi food processing worker employed under a work permit from around December 2023 to 8 December 2025 and deployed at a Bangladeshi restaurant operated by the respondent. The claimant's in-principle approval set a basic monthly salary of $1,500 plus a $500 fixed allowance for a 44-hour, six-day week, with an overtime rate of $11.80 per hour, while his case was that he in fact worked 13 to 15 hours a day, seven days a week. The tribunal also considered the employer's obligation to provide written employment records under s 95 of the Employment Act 1968 and adverse inferences under s 21(2) of the Employment Claims Act 2016, citing one authority in its reasoning.
[2026] SGECT 2 explained
JHU v JHV ([2026] SGECT 2) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGECT on 1 July 2026. It is categorised under Employment Law and Evidence. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGECT 2 about?
JHU v JHV ([2026] SGECT 2) is a SGECT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Employment Law — Pay — Claim under s 38(4) of the Employment Act 1968”, “Evidence — Adverse inferences — Section 21(2) of the Employment Claims Act 2016”, and “Employment Law — Employee records — Employer’s obligation under s 95 of the Employment Act 1968”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGECT 2 consider?
The judgment refers to Employment Act (Cap 91) and Employment Claims Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What overtime rate applied in the JHU v JHV Employment Claims Tribunals case ([2026] SGECT 2)?
Under the in-principle approval governing the claimant's work permit, the overtime rate was $11.80 per hour, on top of a basic monthly salary of $1,500 and a fixed monthly allowance of $500, for a stipulated 44-hour, six-day work week.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (1)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGECT 2)