The manner which employers conduct internal investigations have been increasingly subject to scrutiny and challenge before the Singapore Courts.  

We summarise below three recent notable Court decisions concerning internal investigations, and outline the key considerations for employers to keep in mind when conducting these.

(1) Prashant Mudgal v SAP Asia Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 15 ("Prashant Mudgal")

This Singapore High Court case of Prashant Mudgal decisively confirmed that under employment contracts governed by Singapore law will have the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence, putting to bed an issue that has been subject to much debate.

Background

This dispute centred around whether the employer wrongfully terminated the employee.  

The employee was involved in several incidents of workplace conflict with other employees. Arising from these incidents, the employee's supervisor lodged a complaint with HR expressing her dissatisfaction with the employee's conduct. It was alleged that the employee had sent various emails to other employees containing inflammatory and personal remarks, and yet refused to apologise.

After discussions between the HR, compliance teams, and the employee's supervisor, it was decided that the claimant be placed on a 45-day performance improvement plan ("PIP") with various areas for improvement.

Soon after the end of the PIP period, the employer informed the employee that it would be exercising its contractual right of termination with written notice, and also gave the employee more than the required one month's notice.

The employee argued that the employer had breached the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence under the employment agreement as:

• The PIP was a "charade", was a "hatchet job and its outcome was pre-ordained in that it was never legitimately introduced to give him an opportunity for long-term correction".
• The HR personnel handling his case had the "end-game" of terminating his employment when he was placed on the PIP.

The Court's Findings

After an extensive survey of case law and policy considerations, the Court held that an implied duty of mutual trust and confidence exists in all employment contracts under Singapore law.

However, the precise content of the implied duty and any sub-duties of the employer would depend on the facts of each case.

In this case, the employer had a duty not to behave in an intolerable or wholly unacceptable way towards the employee when putting him on the PIP. Based on the evidence, including internal email discussions between the relevant personnel, the employer was found to have breached this duty as it dishonestly placed the employee on the PIP on the "false pretext that he was given a genuine opportunity to improve". Key considerations of the Court were:

• The employer's leadership team had "set out a course to terminate" the employee's employment even at the time when placing the employee on the PIP and the employee was never given a genuine opportunity to improve
• The employee's supervisor persisted in her desire to terminate his employment as soon as possible even after she formally placed him on the PIP.
• There was a lack of proper documentation during the time the PIP was in place, and in relation to the final conclusion of the PIP. Further, the employee was not informed of the outcome of the PIP and this led him to believe that he had successfully completed it.

However, the employee was awarded nominal damages as he had failed to prove the losses flowing from the breach and the employer had the contractual right to terminate his employment.

Crucially, the Court highlighted three considerations when assessing whether an employer has breached the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence:

1. The threshold of the employer's conduct is a high one, in that it must be "calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence".
2. It is an objective assessment as to whether the employer's conduct passes the threshold, and not what the employee subjectively perceives the conduct to be.
3. An employer would not breach this implied duty if, despite its actions, it can prove that it had "legitimate and proper reasons for so acting".

(2) Andrew Vigar v XL Insurance Company Se Singapore Branch [2025] SGCHR 12 ("Andrew Vigar")

The Court considered the parameters of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence in the context of internal investigations.

Background

The employee was alleged to have harassed another employee of a related entity. The employer commenced internal investigations and found the employee guilty of the harassment allegations. Concurrently, proceedings were brought against the employee in the Tokyo District Court for the same allegations and the Tokyo District Court dismissed those harassment allegations.

The employee subsequently raised concerns regarding the internal investigation and lodged a complaint with the internal audit department. His complaints were not upheld by the internal audit department, and he commenced the Court proceedings against the employer to challenge the internal investigations and the internal audit.

The employee then claimed, among others, that his employer breached the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence by mishandling internal investigations. His position was that the employer was obliged to conduct the internal investigation “promptly, thoroughly and fairly”, and to ensure a working environment where he “can be treated with dignity and respect" and where his psychological safety would be protected ("Proposed Duties").

The Court's Findings

The Court considered that should an implied duty of mutual trust and confidence exist under Singapore law (which it now does following the latest case of Prashant Mudgal analysed above), the following considerations would apply:

• This implied duty is not an open-ended one and would be fact-specific.
•  In the context of internal investigations, this implied duty of mutual trust and confidence requires a "minimum content of fairness" to apply. But this does not mean that employers are subject to all natural justice or due process obligations. For example, unless the contract provides otherwise, the employer does not necessarily have the obligations to investigate allegations in a particular manner or to inform the employee of the investigation outcome.
• Rather, employers should ensure that the procedures and manner of investigations are sufficiently robust and not unfair to the extent that the manner of investigations would amount to a "hatchet job" or would destroy the basis of the continued employment relationship.

The Court also did not accept the Proposed Duties put forth by the employee as there was no basis to imply those specific duties.

(3) Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 10 ("Eddie Tan")

In Eddie Tan, the Court provided guidance on the parties' rights and obligations during an internal investigation. The Court also confirmed that the scope of the employer's due process obligations is circumscribed by the wording of the employment contract.

Background

The employer conducted internal investigations into alleged data breaches by its employee.

In accordance with the respondent's written policies, the investigation was first undertaken by a committee of inquiry ("COI"). The COI's conclusions and recommendations were in turn submitted to a separate disciplinary council ("DC") with power to review the COI's recommendation and decide on the punishment to be meted out.

The COI interviewed the employee and recommended that the employee be issued with a formal warning. The DC reviewed the COI's report as well as another audit report, which was completed after the COI's report was delivered. The audit report had set out details of other data breaches which were not considered by the COI. The DC ultimately decided to dismiss the employee .

The employee claimed wrongful dismissal on the grounds that there were several breaches of due process during the internal investigations. In particular, the employee argued that:

• The DC took into account new information that was not earlier considered by the COI, and failed to give the employee the opportunity to respond to that new information before the DC ("Right to Respond").
• The employer failed to provide the employee with an opportunity to be represented by counsel and to provide the employee with the results and conclusions of the investigations and proceedings ("Other Rights").

The Court's Findings

The Court, both at first instance and on appeal, found against the employee and held that his termination was justified. Both Courts' decisions turned on a detailed review of the relevant contractual documents and the employer's internal policies, and it was decided that the employer was not contractually obliged to give the employee the Right to Respond or the Other Rights.

It is noteworthy that the Court held that the new information was further instances of the same misconduct and therefore were unnecessary to be presented before the employee for him to respond to. However, the outcome may be different if the new information was of a different nature which may change the findings of misconduct.

Implications for employers when conducting internal investigations

The Courts recognize the importance of striking a reasonable balance between the employees' and employers' interests. It is noteworthy that employers are generally given a measure of latitude and discretion in conducting workplace investigations and decisions to terminate an employee's employment, provided that such actions do not seriously damage the mutual trust and confidence with its employees without reasonable cause.

Employers should be aware of the heightened risk of allegations of breaching the duty of mutual trust and confidence and should aim to maintain baseline standards of fairness by ensuring that any investigations and/or termination decisions are fair, honest, and not a façade. Employers should take steps to ensure the following:

1. Adhering to the contractual framework, internal policies and procedures, as employers' obligations will be framed by these documents.
2. Conducting investigations with an open mind and without any pre-determined outcome. Similarly, if an employee is put on a PIP, this must be done with a genuine intention to allow the employee to make the necessary improvements.
3. Proper documentation of the investigation and decision-making process.