share on
The High Court held that a probation period does not automatically mean that an employment contract ends without notice.
The Singapore High Court has dismissed an appeal by Nanyang Law LLC against an Employment Claims Tribunal decision awarding salary in lieu of notice to its former employee, Ghui Meng Yang.
In a judgment published on 24 August 2026 (Monday), in Nanyang Law LLC v Ghui Meng Yang [2026] SGHC 171, Justice Sushil Nair upheld the Tribunal’s decision that Ghui was entitled to S$2,857.14, together with S$30 in disbursements.
The case concerned whether Ghui’s three-month probation period meant that his employment contract automatically ended when the probation period expired.
Employee was told his employment would end before probation expired
Ghui was employed by Nanyang as a supporting officer. He accepted the firm’s offer on 3 April 2023 and started work on 10 April 2023.
His employment terms required him to serve a three-month probation period, ending on 9 July 2023.
On 7 July 2023, Nanyang issued Ghui a letter stating that it had decided not to continue his employment beyond the probation period. The letter stated that his employment would end on 9 July 2023, with 7 July being his last physical day in the office.
Nanyang also offered him a goodwill payment of seven additional days’ salary, covering him until 18 July 2023.
Subsequently, Ghui filed a claim with the Employment Claims Tribunal for one month’s salary in lieu of notice. He claimed that he was entitled to one month’s notice under his employment terms and had not received it.
Nanyang argued that the probation clause created a contract for a specified period. It submitted that the employment relationship would end when the probation period lapsed if Ghui was not confirmed.
The firm argued that no notice period or salary in lieu of notice was required in those circumstances.
Tribunal found that the contract required notice
The Tribunal Magistrate disagreed. The Magistrate found that Singapore law does not require probationary employment to be treated automatically as either fixed-term, or indefinite employment. The effect of a probation clause depends on the parties’ agreement and the wording of the contract.
The Magistrate found that Ghui’s probation clause did not state that his employment would automatically end on 9 July 2023 unless Nanyang confirmed him. Ghui was therefore entitled to one month’s notice of termination.
As Nanyang’s letter on 7 July 2023 amounted to short notice, Ghui was awarded salary for the remaining 20 working days of the one-month notice period. This amounted to S$2,857.14.
Appeal concerned whether probation created a fixed-term contract
On appeal, Nanyang maintained that a stipulated probation period should be treated as a specified period of employment under section 9(1) of the Employment Act.
The High Court rejected that argument.
Justice Nair held that a contract of service containing a probation period is not automatically a contract for a specified period of time. The contractual terms, and where relevant the factual context, must be examined to determine whether the parties intended the employment relationship to end automatically without notice or payment in lieu of the end of probation.
Employment terms did not provide for automatic expiry
The court found that Nanyang’s employment documents formed one contract of service. While different conditions and entitlements applied during the probation period, the terms did not state that Ghui’s employment would automatically expire when the probation period ended.
The court also noted that the employment documents referred to annual salary reviews and annual leave entitlements based on length of service. These provisions were inconsistent with Nanyang’s argument that the arrangement was limited to a separate three-month probation contract.
To this effect, the court stated that an employer may draft a contract to make clear what will happen if an employee is not retained after probation, including whether notice, short notice or payment in lieu of notice will apply, subject to the Employment Act.
However, Nanyang’s terms did not clearly provide that Ghui’s employment would end automatically at the conclusion of probation without notice.
Appeal dismissed
The High Court therefore dismissed Nanyang’s appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s award of S$2,857.14, together with S$30 in disbursements.
share on
