Courts Across Multiple Jurisdictions Reinforce Employer Duty of Fair Process in Dismissals
Published on 07/29/2026 at 06:17 | Redaktion boerse-global.de
A series of rulings from Singapore, Canada, India, Australia and Mauritius has underscored the growing financial risks for employers who sidestep procedural fairness when terminating staff. The decisions, handed down in late July 2026, signal that courts and tribunals are increasingly willing to award significant damages where dismissal processes fall short.
Singapore Tribunal Awards Maximum Payout for Probationary Dismissal
The Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) in Singapore ordered a company to pay S$30,000 to a former employee dismissed during her probation — the maximum statutory compensation available through the tribunal.
The claimant was hired in April 2025 as a regional internal control audit manager on a monthly salary of S$11,500. She was dismissed six months later with just two weeks' notice. Magistrate Joel Tan found the termination was sudden and unjustified, noting the employer had failed to demonstrate poor performance.
Crucially, the tribunal found that the company had not clearly communicated performance standards to the employee. The magistrate described the supervisor's competency ratings as "subjective impressions presented as a formal suitability review" rather than an objective assessment. While the tribunal rejected additional allegations of language-based discrimination and whistleblowing retaliation, it concluded the employee would have remained in post for at least three more months but for the wrongful dismissal.
Procedural fairness in dismissals starts long before a termination letter is drafted — it begins with clear documentation of expectations and performance. A free Health & Safety Toolkit helps UK employers establish compliant processes for risk assessments and staff management, reducing exposure to costly claims. Download the free Health & Safety Toolkit
Ontario Court Hits RBC with CAD 2.6 Million Penalty
In a landmark ruling in Ontario, the Superior Court ordered the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) to pay more than CAD 2.6 million (approximately USD 1.85 million) to Ravini Silva, a former top-ranked financial planner who was wrongfully dismissed for cause in 2018.
At the time of her termination, Silva was ranked the top financial planner in the Greater Toronto Area and third in Canada. The bank alleged she had forwarded confidential information, conducted unauthorised trades and backdated documents. However, the court determined there was no just cause for the dismissal.
The presiding judge described RBC's internal investigation as "an exercise in gathering ammunition rather than a neutral inquiry". The award included CAD 250,000 in punitive damages, reflecting the court's view of the employer's conduct throughout the dismissal process.
India: 13 Years of Service, Dismissed Over a Transport Claim
The Bombay High Court awarded ?8 lakh in compensation to Ananta Rajaram Walunj, a worker dismissed in August 2013 following a dispute over a transport allowance claim totalling just ?17,868.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that the termination was "shockingly disproportionate", particularly given Walunj's 13 years of unblemished service and existing confusion regarding multiple travel routes. The ruling reinforces the principle that penalties must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Alberta Court Rejects 'Template' Defence for Early Termination
In early July 2026, the Alberta Court of Justice ordered Pertium Group to pay a former welder C$42,709 after terminating a one-year fixed-term contract six months early.
The company argued that the one-year term was a meaningless inclusion copied from a template. The court rejected this defence outright, ruling that the contract created a binding commitment. The decision serves as a warning to employers that contractual terms cannot simply be dismissed as boilerplate.
Australia: Fair Work Finds Process Rushed Despite Valid Concerns
On 21 July 2026, the Fair Work Commission ruled that SeaLink Whitsundays unfairly dismissed a boat master. While the commission acknowledged valid reasons for dismissal — including safety lapses such as sleeping on duty and vaping — it found the process was rushed and denied the employee a proper opportunity to respond. The worker was awarded S$5,204.39.
Mauritius: Privy Council Upholds Record Severance After 37 Years
The Privy Council upheld a ruling that resulted in a severance allowance of MUR 88.2 million (approximately USD 1.9 million) for a former bank employee with 37 years of continuous service. The court emphasised that departures from statutory interest rates must be specifically justified by lower courts.
These rulings show that fair process is non-negotiable — and the same principle applies to workplace safety compliance. A free Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 Toolkit provides UK businesses with 9 practical tools, including risk assessments and director liability guides, to help meet legal obligations and avoid costly penalties. Get the free Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 Toolkit
Key Takeaways for Employers
These rulings collectively underline that employers face substantial financial exposure when termination processes bypass clear communication or procedural requirements established by local statutes. Whether during probation, on fixed-term contracts, or after decades of service, the message from courts across multiple jurisdictions is consistent: fair process is not optional.
Disclaimer regarding our articles: No investment advice, no buy or sell recommendation. Information on prices, companies, and markets is provided without guarantee; changes are possible at any time. Stock market transactions can lead to substantial losses. Our articles are created and reviewed in whole or in part automatically with the support of AI.
