Singapore Court Clarifies Notice Rights During Employee Probation

A Singapore High Court ruling has put the spotlight on how probation clauses are written, reinforcing the importance of clear notice terms for employers, HR teams and employees navigating the early stages of employment.  

| Written by Palak Kataria

Image Courtesy: Magnific

Probation may feel like a temporary stage of employment, but does reaching its final day automatically bring the employment relationship to an end? A recent Singapore High Court ruling has provided useful clarity for employers and employees, highlighting just how important the wording of an employment contract can be.

In Nanyang Law LLC v Ghui Meng Yang, the High Court dismissed an appeal by Nanyang Law LLC against an Employment Claims Tribunal decision concerning salary in lieu of notice. At the heart of the case was a straightforward question with wider implications for HR teams: if an employer decides not to retain an employee at the end of probation, does the probation period simply expire, or must the notice requirements in the employment contract still be followed?

Ghui Meng Yang joined Nanyang Law as a Supporting Officer in April 2023. His employment terms included a three-month probation period ending on 9 July 2023 and provided that either party could terminate the contract during probation by giving one month's prior written notice.

Two days before his probation was due to end, Ghui was informed that the firm had decided not to continue his employment beyond the probation period. The firm took the position that his employment would end when probation expired and that the contractual notice requirement therefore did not apply.

Ghui subsequently sought one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Employment Claims Tribunal found that he was entitled to notice and awarded him payment for the remaining 20 working days of the one-month notice period, amounting to S$2,857.14.

The High Court upheld that decision.

Importantly, the court did not establish a blanket rule that every probationary employee must always receive notice pay. Instead, it clarified that simply specifying a probation period in an employment contract does not automatically turn the employment relationship into a fixed-term contract that expires at the end of probation.

Whether employment ends automatically depends on the wording and construction of the individual contract.

In this case, the court found that the probation clause did not establish a separate fixed-term employment arrangement that would automatically expire on 9 July if Ghui was not confirmed. He was therefore entitled to one month's notice from the date he was informed that his employment would end, or salary in lieu of the remaining notice period.

For HR leaders, the decision offers a practical reminder that probation should not be treated as an administrative formality. The way probation, confirmation and termination provisions are drafted can determine what happens when an organisation decides not to continue an employment relationship.

Clear communication matters just as much. Employees entering a new role should be able to understand how long probation lasts, what notice period applies during that time and what happens if either party decides not to continue the relationship.

Singapore's Ministry of Manpower similarly advises employees to refer to their employment contracts for the notice terms governing probation and confirmation. Where a contract does not specify a different notice period for employees on probation, MOM says the notice period would be the same during probation and after confirmation.

The High Court's decision therefore provides a useful lesson beyond the individual dispute. Probation may be designed as a period for employers and employees to assess whether a working relationship is the right fit, but clarity around how that period ends is equally important.

For organisations, well-defined employment terms can create greater certainty for managers and HR teams. For employees, they provide transparency at a stage of the employment journey when expectations are still being established.

As workplaces continue to place greater emphasis on employee experience, that clarity can make even difficult employment decisions easier to understand and navigate.

Source(s): Singapore High Court, Nanyang Law LLC v Ghui Meng Yang [2026] SGHC 171; Singapore Ministry of Manpower; People Matters Global