JJF v JJG
Key facts
| Court | Employment Claims Tribunals |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Jared Kang Chern Wey |
| Charges / claim | Employment Law |
Source: [2026] SGECT 9, Employment Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
JJF v JJG [2026] SGECT 9 is a decision of the Employment Claims Tribunals delivered by Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey on 7 August 2026. The claimant was dismissed on 19 August 2025 under a contractual termination clause by payment of salary in lieu of notice, with no reason given. He claimed $18,000 under s 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968, alleging that the dismissal was linked to his disclosure of a mental health condition. The issues concerned the meaning of dismissal without just cause or excuse, the burden of proof and the available remedies. The Tribunal Magistrate rejected the discrimination and retaliation case but found the dismissal lacked just cause or excuse, awarding $11,437.50 as compensation for harm and $70 in disbursements, with no award for loss of income and no order as to costs. Orders were made on 26 January 2026.
[2026] SGECT 9 explained
JJF v JJG ([2026] SGECT 9) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGECT on 7 August 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 9 about?
JJF v JJG ([2026] SGECT 9) is a SGECT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Employment Law — Termination — Dismissal”, 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 9 consider?
The judgment refers to Employment Act (Cap 91), Employment Claims Act, Employment Rights Act, and Evidence Act (Cap 97), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGECT 9 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHCR 14, [2026] SGCA 19, and [2026] SGCA 12, and 4 more. 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 a claim by JJF, a Senior Construction Manager dismissed by his employer JJG on 19 August 2025 by salary in lieu of notice with no reason given. He alleged discrimination linked to his mental health disclosure and sought $18,000. The Tribunal Magistrate rejected the discrimination case but found the dismissal was without just cause or excuse under s 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968. He awarded $11,437.50 as compensation for harm and $70 in disbursements, and gave detailed grounds on the law of wrongful dismissal.
What was JJF v JJG [2026] SGECT 9 about?
A claimant dismissed with salary in lieu of notice and no stated reason claimed $18,000 under s 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968, alleging discrimination over a mental health condition. The tribunal examined what dismissal without just cause or excuse means.
What compensation did the tribunal award in [2026] SGECT 9?
The Tribunal Magistrate awarded the claimant $11,437.50 as compensation for harm and $70 in disbursements, a total of $11,507.50. He made no award for loss of income, declined the apology and agreed statement sought, and made no order as to costs.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (74)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGECT 9)