Singapore workers on probation may have more protection than they realise
Being on probation does not automatically mean an employee can be dismissed without notice or salary in lieu of notice, according to a recent Singapore High Court ruling.
The decision, released on Aug. 24, 2026, clarified that simply describing an employee as being on probation does not automatically make the employment contract a fixed-term agreement that ends when the probation period expires. Instead, the court must examine the actual wording and structure of the employment contract.
The ruling arose from a dispute involving Ghui Meng Yang, who worked as a paralegal at Nanyang Law LLC on a monthly salary of S$3,000.
Ghui began work on April 10, 2023, and was placed on a three-month probation period scheduled to end on July 9. His employment contract stated that the probation period was intended to assess his suitability and could be extended if necessary. Importantly, the contract also stated that either party could terminate the employment during probation by giving one month’s written notice.
Two days before his probation was due to end, on July 7, the law firm informed Ghui that it would not continue his employment beyond July 9.
The firm argued that July 9 was simply the end of the probation period, meaning his employment ended automatically and no notice was required. It offered him an additional seven days’ salary as a goodwill payment.
Ghui disagreed and argued that his contract entitled him to one month’s notice or salary in lieu of notice.
Employment tribunal sided with the employee
The Employment Claims Tribunals ruled in Ghui’s favour in January 2024, treating the firm’s July 7 letter as a termination notice.
The tribunal awarded him 20 working days’ salary, amounting to S$2,857.14, after accounting for salary already paid for July 7.
Nanyang Law appealed to the High Court, arguing that probation was effectively a fixed period during which the employer and employee could determine whether the employment relationship should continue.
The High Court rejected that argument.
Justice Sushil Nair said the mere existence of a probation period does not automatically transform an employment contract into a fixed-term contract.
Instead, the specific contractual language matters.
Why the contract wording mattered
The court found that Ghui’s contract was more naturally understood as an ongoing contract of service with different conditions applying during the probation period.
Among the provisions considered were terms relating to annual salary reviews and increasing annual leave based on length of service. The judge noted that such provisions would make little sense if the employment relationship were intended to last only three months.
The court also rejected the argument that the absence of a specific clause saying what would happen if the employee was not confirmed meant the contract automatically expired.
If the employer intended the employment to end automatically at the conclusion of probation, the contract could have been drafted to make that position clear, including whether notice, a shorter notice period or payment in lieu would apply.
The High Court therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal’s decision.
Nanyang Law was ordered to pay Ghui S$2,887.14, comprising S$2,857.14 in salary in lieu of notice and S$30 in disbursements, in addition to appeal costs.
What this means for employees in Singapore
The ruling does not mean every probationer is automatically entitled to a particular notice period.
Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) says employees should check their employment contracts for the notice period applicable during probation and after confirmation. If the contract does not specify a different probation notice period, the notice period is generally the same during probation and after confirmation.
MOM also states that an employer or employee can terminate employment at the end of probation, but written notice must be given and the contractual notice period must either be served or compensated through salary in lieu of notice.
In other words, probation and termination are not necessarily the same thing.
An employee can fail probation without the employment automatically becoming a contract that simply disappears on the probation end date. Whether notice is required depends heavily on the contract and the circumstances.
A timely warning for employers
The decision also highlights why employment contracts need to be drafted carefully.
MOM requires key employment terms to include both the probation period and notice period, where applicable.
For employers, vague wording around probation can potentially lead to disputes over whether employment ended automatically or was terminated.
For employees, the message is equally important: do not assume that being on probation means you have no contractual protection if your employment is terminated.
And there is another important distinction.
A genuine fixed-term contract can operate differently. MOM states that a fixed-term contract generally terminates automatically when the agreed term expires, although different rules can apply if either party seeks to end it before the contract’s expiry.
Another Singapore probation case shows why the issue matters
The High Court ruling comes shortly after another Singapore employment dispute involving a worker dismissed near the end of her probation.
In July 2026, the Employment Claims Tribunals awarded a woman the statutory maximum of S$30,000 after finding that her dismissal over alleged poor performance was wrongful. She had been hired as a regional internal control audit manager on S$11,500 a month and was dismissed shortly before the end of a six-month probation period.
That case was different from Ghui’s: it concerned wrongful dismissal, while Ghui’s claim focused on notice pay.
Together, however, the cases underscore a broader point for Singapore’s workforce: being a probationer does not place an employee outside the rules governing employment contracts and dismissal.
The bottom line
The latest High Court ruling is not a blanket rule saying every employee who fails probation must receive one month’s salary.
Instead, it establishes a more precise principle: a probation clause by itself does not automatically make an employment contract a fixed-term contract that expires without notice.
Employees and employers should therefore look closely at the actual terms of the employment contract — particularly the clauses dealing with probation, termination and notice.
For workers facing dismissal during or immediately after probation, that contract could make a significant difference.
Leave a Reply