Leading Employment Law Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore

The court allowed Poten's claims in part, finding Mr Lee liable on all three claims but for far less than claimed: S$32,384.62 as payment in lieu of notice, S$32,384.62 under s 16 of the Employment…

The court rejected all of Mr Low's defences and allowed the claim, ordering him to pay ASEPL $36,000 with interest at 5.33% per annum from the date the claim was filed until judgment, with costs to…

The District Judge allowed the claim in full and ordered the employee to pay the company damages of $119,490.14.

The High Court allowed the claim in part.

Mohamed Faizal JC allowed the claim in part.

Assistant Registrar Ramu Miyapan allowed the company's application and struck out the statement of claim in its entirety, finding both grounds made out.

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondent fixed at $30,000 (all in), with the usual consequential orders.

The High Court dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that the employer was fully justified in dismissing Dr Tan and was not negligent.

Wong Li Kok, Alex JC dismissed the claimant's claims, holding the summary dismissal valid.

The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' claims and dismissed Mr Grover's counterclaim.

The High Court allowed the claim in part.

Wong Li Kok, Alex JC dismissed the claimant's claims, holding the summary dismissal valid.

The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' claims and dismissed Mr Grover's counterclaim.

The High Court allowed both the claim and the counterclaim in part.

The court allowed the claim, entering judgment for the claimant for US$2,464,354.84 with interest at 5.33%, comprising the termination bonus, six months' salary in lieu of notice and allowances for…

The High Court dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that the employer was fully justified in dismissing Dr Tan and was not negligent.

The tribunal dismissed the claim.

The tribunal allowed the claim for $20,000 in full, made up of $15,240 for loss of income and $4,760 for harm (the harm figure being capped by the tribunal's monetary limit), and awarded the claimant…

The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant had been dismissed for performance concerns, which was just cause or excuse within s 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968.

The tribunal allowed the claim in full, finding the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, and awarded the claimant $30,000, the prescribed claim limit, together with $300 in costs and $60 in…

The Tribunal allowed the claim in full, ordering payment of $5,877.91, and awarded the claimant $300 in costs and $40 in disbursements.

The tribunal allowed the disputed claim for $4,000 and, with the two undisputed heads, ordered RPL to pay Ms C $4,419.38 plus $330 in costs and disbursements, a total of $4,749.38 by 20 December 2024.

The tribunal allowed the claim in part.

The tribunal dismissed both claims, including the wrongful dismissal claim, the claim for an additional retrenchment benefit and the share option claim.

The High Court allowed both the claim and the counterclaim in part.

The court allowed the claim, entering judgment for the claimant for US$2,464,354.84 with interest at 5.33%, comprising the termination bonus, six months' salary in lieu of notice and allowances for…

The High Court discharged both interim injunctions granted ex parte in SUM 229 on 29 January 2024, setting them aside.

The High Court dismissed Summons No 3619 of 2023 and refused all the interim injunctions, including the springboard injunction.

The tribunal allowed the claims in part: it dismissed Claim 864 for December 2025 to March 2026, finding narrowly that RPL had proved payment, and allowed Claim 865 in full for $6,562.50, rejecting…

The tribunal allowed the claims in part: it dismissed Claim 864 for December 2025 to March 2026, finding narrowly that RPL had proved payment, and allowed Claim 865 in full for $6,562.50, rejecting…

The court allowed Poten's claims in part, finding Mr Lee liable on all three claims but for far less than claimed: S$32,384.62 as payment in lieu of notice, S$32,384.62 under s 16 of the Employment…

The court allowed Poten's claims in part, finding Mr Lee liable on all three claims but for far less than claimed: S$32,384.62 as payment in lieu of notice, S$32,384.62 under s 16 of the Employment…

The court allowed Poten's claims in part, finding Mr Lee liable on all three claims but for far less than claimed: S$32,384.62 as payment in lieu of notice, S$32,384.62 under s 16 of the Employment…

The tribunal allowed the claim in part, awarding $15,000 of the $20,000 claimed.

The tribunal allowed the claim in part, awarding $15,000 of the $20,000 claimed.

The tribunal allowed the claim and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant $19,800 as compensation for wrongful dismissal, made up of $9,900 for loss of income and $9,900 for harm caused, the…

The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant had been dismissed for performance concerns, which was just cause or excuse within s 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968.

The Tribunal allowed the claim in full, ordering payment of $5,877.91, and awarded the claimant $300 in costs and $40 in disbursements.

The Tribunal allowed the claim in full, ordering payment of $5,877.91, and awarded the claimant $300 in costs and $40 in disbursements.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the Tribunal's decision stand, with payment of $2,887.14, being $2,857.14 and $30 in disbursements, within one week.

The court allowed the company's claims in part, ordering the defendant to pay $14,683.33 with interest at 5.33% per annum from 2 November 2023.

The tribunal dismissed the claim, Claim No 11477 of 2025, for lack of jurisdiction under section 22(7) of the Employment Claims Act 2016.

The High Court allowed Mr Goh's oppression claim and ordered Mr Yeo to buy out all his shares in the group companies at a price fixed by an independent valuer as at the date of judgment, applying a…

The tribunal allowed the claim in full, finding the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, and awarded the claimant $30,000, the prescribed claim limit, together with $300 in costs and $60 in…

The court rejected all of Mr Low's defences and allowed the claim, ordering him to pay ASEPL $36,000 with interest at 5.33% per annum from the date the claim was filed until judgment, with costs to…

The Tribunal allowed both claims in full, awarding the claimant $26,350, being $11,600 for wrongful dismissal and an EAP of $14,750.

The Tribunal allowed both claims in full, awarding the claimant $26,350, being $11,600 for wrongful dismissal and an EAP of $14,750.

The tribunal allowed Ms C's claim and ordered FPL to pay her $7,030.86 by 3 July 2023.