The recent High Court decision in Goh Hui En Rebecca v IG Asia Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 20 offers timely insights for both employees and employers navigating employment disputes.
In particular, it clarifies when and how an employee can bring separate claims before the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) and the High Court; and why that strategy may be entirely permissible.
In this article, we break down what happened in this case, what the High Court decided, and the key takeaways for both employees and employers when structuring employment claims.
Background: The dispute
Ms. Goh, a former employee of IG Asia (IGA), was terminated for alleged "serious misconduct." Following her dismissal, IGA filed a misconduct report with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
Ms. Goh initially took her claim for salary in lieu of notice to the ECT, where she was successful. The ECT ruled that IGA had failed to substantiate the misconduct allegations.
The High Court suit: Going beyond salary
After her ECT victory, Ms. Goh commenced a separate suit in the High Court, claiming:
- Unpaid sales commissions (which exceeded the ECT's monetary cap)
- Damages for defamation, arising from the MAS report
- Negligence in the filing of that report
IGA argued that these claims should be struck out, asserting that Ms. Goh had improperly "split" her claims and was abusing the court process.
The High Court disagreed; and its reasoning holds important lessons.
ECT first, High Court later: A valid strategy
The High Court affirmed that pursuing a smaller claim in the ECT first is not automatically an abuse of process. The ECT was created as an accessible, efficient forum for employees to resolve urgent employment-related claims like unpaid salaries.
Importantly, Ms. Goh had evidence (including emails with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management) showing she made a considered decision to address her immediate salary claim first, before pursuing larger or more complex claims in the High Court.
Forcing employees to bring all claims together in one expensive and lengthy High Court suit would undermine the purpose of the ECT. The decision thus preserves employees' right to seek fast relief while reserving more complex matters for later litigation.
ECT findings matter and can be binding
The judgment also highlights the significance of ECT decisions. IGA attempted to re-litigate the jurisdiction and findings of the ECT, but the High Court firmly rejected this as a "second bite of the cherry."
Employers should note that findings in the ECT may have serious downstream consequences. Once decided, they cannot easily be challenged in subsequent proceedings.
Scrutiny on forfeiture clauses
Another notable point from this case was the treatment of contract clauses that forfeit employee entitlements "for any reason" upon termination.
IGA argued that Ms. Goh's commissions were forfeited based on such a clause. However, the court found it arguable that a literal reading would lead to an "absurd result" — for example, allowing an employer to terminate someone simply to avoid paying earned commissions.
Although not conclusively decided at this stage, the court allowed the argument to proceed to trial. This signals a willingness by Singapore courts to look closely at broadly worded clauses that may unfairly prejudice employees.
Looking ahead: Practical takeaways
This decision sends a clear message that employees can strategically sequence their claims without automatically being penalised for "claim splitting." Employers, meanwhile, must take ECT proceedings seriously and understand that contractual clauses around forfeiture may be scrutinised and challenged.
The case reinforces the importance of carefully drafting employment contracts and preparing a robust strategy when disputes arise.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
