JIA v JJJ
Key facts
| Court | Employment Claims Tribunals |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Jared Kang Chern Wey |
| Charges / claim | Employment Law |
Source: [2026] SGECT 17, Employment Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
JJA v JJJ [2026] SGECT 17 was decided by Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey in the Employment Claims Tribunals, with judgment on 9 October 2026 in Claim Nos 10864 and 10865 of 2026. The claimant, an Indian national on an Employment Pass, worked for the respondent, which operates minimarts, from 3 January 2025 to 21 May 2026 at a monthly salary of $9,000. In Claim 864 he sought unpaid salary for December 2025 to March 2026, capped at $20,000, while the respondent relied on signed payslips. In Claim 865 he sought $6,562.50 for April 2026; the respondent sought to deduct $2,062.50 and $1,390. The Tribunal dismissed Claim 864, allowed Claim 865 in full and awarded $50 in disbursements, so that the respondent was to pay $6,612.50.
[2026] SGECT 17 explained
JIA v JJJ ([2026] SGECT 17) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGECT on 9 October 2026. It is categorised under Employment Law. 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 17 about?
JIA v JJJ ([2026] SGECT 17) is a SGECT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Employment Law — Pay” and “Employment Law — Particular employments regulated”, 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 17 consider?
The judgment refers to Employment Act (Cap 91). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGECT 17 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 208 and [2023] SGHC 330. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Employment Claims Tribunals heard two claims by an Employment Pass holder, JJA, against his former employer, JJJ, which operates minimarts. He claimed unpaid salary for December 2025 to March 2026, capped at $20,000, and $6,562.50 for 1 to 22 April 2026. The Tribunal Magistrate dismissed the first claim and allowed the second in full, holding the employer's proposed deductions of $2,062.50 and $1,390 and its set-off could not reduce the April salary. The employer was ordered to pay $6,612.50 by 16 October 2026.
What was JJA v JJJ [2026] SGECT 17 about?
A minimart employee on an Employment Pass brought two claims for unpaid salary against his employer. One covered December 2025 to March 2026, the other 1 to 22 April 2026. The employer relied on signed payslips and sought deductions from the April salary.
What did the Employment Claims Tribunals order in [2026] SGECT 17?
The Tribunal Magistrate dismissed Claim 864, allowed Claim 865 in full for $6,562.50, and awarded $50 in disbursements with no order as to costs. The respondent was to pay $6,612.50 by 16 October 2026 by bank transfer.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (7)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGECT 17)