新加坡法律饼干店
#01-LAW
est. 2023 · baked daily, no holidays
FRESH BATCH · 23:30 SGT
SELF SERVICE · 自助服务
13 cookies today

baked fresh
this morning

Singapore's daily legal output, reduced to the signals worth biting into.

★ THE DAILY BAKE ★

DATESAT 17 OCT 2026
OVEN OPENED23:30 SGT

○ NEWS6
⬡ JUDGMENTS7
▲ PINEAPPLE TARTS2
FRESH9
COOLING RACK2

BUSIEST OVENEMPLOYMENT LAW ×6
NEW INGREDIENT"ANDY ONG"

thank you — come again tomorrow

FRESHLY LOGGED

straight from the oven, tray by tray

DISPLAY CASE · SCROLL →
SGECT holds in [2026] SGECT 17 that employers cannot deduct salary in lieu of notice from earned salary unless the deduction is expressly authorised under the Employment Act 1968. Employment Law · JUDICIARY PINEAPPLE TART · ACT ON
SGECT holds in [2026] SGECT 17 that replacement worker costs are not a permitted deduction from earned salary under the Employment Act 1968. Employment Law · JUDICIARY PINEAPPLE TART · ACT ON
District Court in [2026] SGDC 338 applies 'thin-skull' rule to reject deduction for pre-existing cervical spine condition where accident materially aggravated injury. Personal Injury and Tort Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
District Court in [2026] SGDC 338 awards provisional damages under O 15 r 15(7) Rules of Court 2021 for future spinal surgery where appreciable risk exists but timing uncertain. Personal Injury and Tort Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGSCT holds in [2026] SGSCT 27 that tuition centre's non-solicitation claim fails where evidence does not establish active solicitation by teacher. Contract Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGECT holds in [2026] SGECT 17 that related claims may proceed separately before the Employment Claims Tribunals if not artificially divided to evade the monetary jurisdiction limit. Employment Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGECT holds in [2026] SGECT 17 that signed and thumbprinted payslips create a rebuttable presumption of salary payment stronger than an employee's claim of signing blank documents. Employment Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
Employer warned for failure to maintain mandatory Work Injury Compensation Act insurance. Employment Law · MOM $0.60 · FRESH
District Court warns against using shell companies to evade rental obligations and stall evictions. Landlord Tenant Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
Transboundary Haze Pollution Act triggered by sustained unhealthy air quality. Environmental and Natural Resource Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
PDPC issues advisory guidelines on Generative AI and unauthorized AI in software development. Privacy Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
Couple plead guilty to charges involving the fatal abuse of an infant. Criminal Law · SLW $0.30 · TRACKING
IMDA introduces enterprise playbooks and accreditation for safe AI adoption. Privacy Law · SLW $0.30 · TRACKING

The chips on each cookie are its FOLIO concepts — more chips, more doctrine. Pineapple tarts are reserved for the signals you act on. 2 more bakes are on the cooling rack below.

Today's Specials

the pineapple tarts — they change what you do on Monday
01⬡ JUDGMENT

SGECT holds in [2026] SGECT 17 that employers cannot deduct salary in lieu of notice from earned salary unless the deduction is expressly authorised under the Employment Act 1968.

RPL sought to deduct salary in lieu of notice from Mr C's April 2026 earnings, claiming he resigned without notice. The tribunal held that earned salary remains payable regardless of notice breaches, and that Section 23(3) of the Employment Act 1968 only permits deductions for liability founded on Section 11(1) (termination without notice), not Section 16 (breaking a contract), with RPL failing to prove termination under Section 11(1).

Why it mattersEmployers cannot unilaterally set off notice period liabilities against earned wages; statutory authorisation under the Employment Act 1968 is strictly required and narrowly construed.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗
02⬡ JUDGMENT

SGECT holds in [2026] SGECT 17 that replacement worker costs are not a permitted deduction from earned salary under the Employment Act 1968.

RPL sought to deduct costs of hiring replacement workers from Mr C's April 2026 salary. The tribunal held this deduction impermissible because it fell outside all categories under Section 27(1) of the Employment Act 1968: absence from work (Sections 27(1)(a) and 28), damage to goods (Sections 27(1)(b) and 29), or written consent (Section 27(1)(i)).

Why it mattersEmployers cannot recoup operational costs such as replacement worker expenses through unilateral salary deductions; only the expressly enumerated categories in Section 27(1) are permitted.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗