The Singapore Law Gazette

Building flourishing workplaces

3 areas to look out for in the Workplace Fairness Act

The recently passed Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill has shed new light on the remedies and dispute resolution procedures that will be available under the Workplace Fairness Act 2025. This article discusses three key developments: (i) the introduction of a statutory tort of discrimination; (ii) an increased $250,000 claim ceiling for the Employment Claims Tribunal; and (iii) the adoption of a judge-led approach in the High Court for discrimination claims. It explores how these changes aim to enhance access to justice for both employees and employers, as well as their potential implications.

“Just as the cempaka flower flourishes with the morning dew, a workplace thrives when fairness and equality are upheld.”¹Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Dr. Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-765, last accessed 8 January 2026.

The Minister for Manpower, Dr. Tan See Leng, ended his clarifications before Parliament on 4 November 2025 citing these words (a Malay pantun) just before the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill (the “Second Bill”) was passed in Parliament. The Second Bill details the processes and procedures by which employees and employers may resolve discrimination claims under the Workplace Fairness Act 2025 (“the Act”), with the Act expected to come into force in 2027. The passing of the Second Bill is welcome news, as the amendments introduced via the Second Bill are designed to provide employees and employers with access to affordable and expeditious dispute resolution under the Act.

This article will highlight three notable developments concerning the dispute resolution aspects of the Act, and areas for further development that all employees and employers should look out for.

1. A new tort of discrimination

The Act, when it comes into force, will give individuals a right to bring a civil action under a new statutory tort of discrimination (Section 36A(1) of the Act). This statutory tort is directed at discriminatory employment decisions and may be brought against an employer by the individual who was subject of the alleged discriminatory employment decision.

The Act is in good company as other common law jurisdictions have also imported tortious concepts into their own statutory discrimination laws. For example, section 119(2)(a) of the United Kingdom Equality Act 2010 provides, as to remedies, that a county court may provide “any remedy which could by granted by the High Court in proceedings in tort”. Courts in the United Kingdom have deemed discrimination to be a “statutory tort”,²See for e.g. Hounga v Allen and another (2014) All ER 595 at (25) and have applied tortious concepts in determining liability and damages. Likewise in the United States, federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have often invoked tortious concepts in applying federal discrimination statutes like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.³Sandra F. Sperino. “Discrimination Law: The New Franken-Tort.”(2016) 65(2) DePaul L.R. 721 at 723-730. Similarly, in Australia, there are various statutes prohibiting different kinds of discrimination, and courts have applied a tortious approach to determining the appropriate damages.⁴Australian Human Rights Commission, Federal Discrimination Law Guide, Chapter 7 – Damages and Remedies (December 2012), https://humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/by-resource-type/federal-discrimination-law/federal-discrimination-law-chapter-7-d (last accessed 9 December 2025), at 7.2.1(a), citing, inter alia, Qantas Airways Limited v Gama (2008) FCAFC 69 (2 May 2008) at (94).

There are therefore existing frameworks (not to mention a wealth of precedents) for claimants to refer to when crafting their claims, and they will not be doing so in a vacuum. On the other hand, some concerns have been raised during parliamentary debates regarding whether the everyday lay employee will be able to sufficiently understand the process and their rights to bring a claim.⁵See for e.g. Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Mr. Dennis Tan Lip Fong (MP for Hougang), Dr. Wan Rizal (MP for Jalan Besar), Ms. Denise Phua (MP for Jalan Rajah), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-766, last accessed 8 January 2026. In this sense, it is possible that the introduction of tortious concepts will increase the barrier to entry in this respect, particularly since legal representation is not permitted before the Employment Claims Tribunal (“ECT”), although representation is allowed for higher value claims heard before the High Court. This underscores the importance of the union representatives (who may represent employees and employees in these proceedings), general employee education, but also the emphasis on a judge-led process, to help balance this potential difficulty.

The other interesting implication that the introduction of an action for discrimination will have relates to the quantification of damages where a claim for discrimination is made out. Local advocacy organisation the Association of Women for Action and Research (“AWARE”) had previously suggested in its 2023 report on anti-discrimination in the workplace that: “a tortious measure of damage affords courts and tribunals the flexibility to fashion appropriate remedies, including the imposition of not only compensatory but also punitive damages”.⁶AWARE “Beyond Fairness: A legal framework for anti-discrimination in the workplace” (7 March 2023), https://www.aware.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/AWARE-Beyond-Fairness-Workplace-Discrimination-Position-Paper-7-March-2023.pdf (Last accessed 10 December 2025). They further cited section 119(4) of the United Kingdom Equality Act 2010, which expressly allows for compensation for injured feelings. It remains to be seen how far the ECT and the High Court will allow tortious concepts to go in developing the damages afforded for such discrimination claims. However, insofar as compensation for injured feelings, unlike the Equality Act 2010 which expressly spells out such a remedy, the Act has no corresponding and/or similar provision. During the second reading of the Second Bill, Mr. Dennis Tan, Member of Parliament for Hougang, asked if new heads of claim such as injury to feelings would be claimable, and if so, how it would be quantified.⁷Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Mr. Dennis Tan Lip Fong (MP for Hougang), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-766, last accessed 8 January 2026. To this, the Minister for Manpower replied that new heads of claims for damages were not prescribed, and that methods for the quantification of damages were still under consideration.⁸Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Dr. Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-765, last accessed 8 January 2026. Therefore, only time will tell how, as a practical matter, tortious concepts may be applied in quantifying damages and whether (and if so, how) discrimination claims will in turn influence the development of tort law in Singapore.

Another promising development is that, notwithstanding the fact that all proceedings under the Act are to be held in private both in the ECT and the High Court, the Minister for Manpower has noted that having private hearings does not mean that the judgments will be kept private. He noted that the government is working with the Courts on making ECT judgments publicly accessible.⁹Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Dr. Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-765, last accessed 8 January 2026. This will provide an avenue for the general public to better understand this new statutory tort and is certainly a welcome measure that will bring an increased level of transparency to the ECT’s decisions. In turn, this will be an important step forward in making this new statutory tort of discrimination more accessible.

2. A $250,000 ceiling for Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) claims

At the heart of the Act is a three-tiered dispute resolution system:

1. First, it is envisioned that employees will have recourse to their company’s own internal dispute resolution mechanisms;¹⁰Ministry of Manpower, Factsheet, ‘Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill’ , “Annex A: Overview of Dispute Resolution Framework Workplace Fairness Dispute Resolution Bill (14 October 2025), https://www.mom.gov.sg/-/media/mom/documents/press-releases/2025/annex-a–overview-of-dispute-resolution-framework–workplace-fairness-dispute-resolution-bill.pdf, last accessed 7 January 2026.
2. Second, should the dispute not be resolved within the company, both parties must attend mandatory mediation; and
3. Third, should mediation prove unsuccessful, the employee may bring their claim before the ECT or the General Division of the High Court.

One of the more notable aspects of the Act is that discrimination claims of up to $250,000 must be brought before the ECT. This represents a marked increase from the ECT’s existing jurisdictional limit for wrongful dismissal and salary related claims, which is $20,000 (or $30,000 for claims that have gone through the Tripartite Mediation Framework or mediations assisted by unions recognised under the Industrial Relations Act). Only discrimination claims above $250,000 will be heard in the High Court, and the Minister for Manpower has remarked in parliamentary debates that it is not expected that many discrimination claims will be adjudicated in the High Court.¹¹Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Dr. Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-766, last accessed 8 January 2026. The Minister for Manpower has also noted that the higher claim limit does not necessarily mean that discrimination claims are expected to be of higher value than other employment claims. Therefore, it appears that the Ministry of Manpower anticipates that the bulk of such discrimination claims will be heard before the ECT.

There are clear benefits from an access-to-justice perspective in designating the ECT (by way of the high jurisdiction limit) as the main forum for hearing most discrimination claims. As is currently the case, legal representation is not permitted before the ECT, which should in theory reduce the cost to both employees and employers in resolving such discrimination claims. It is easy to see how the prospect of appearing before the ECT without needing to face an opposing party’s lawyer in a more formal court room might be less daunting (and more financially feasible) for the everyday employee. Employees who are members of a trade union are also permitted to have a representative of their trade union represent them in mediation under the Act or in ECT proceedings. It is further expected that ECT proceedings will be faster to resolve than the usual employment cases in the State and High Courts, which will result in further time and costs savings.¹²Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Dr. Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-766, last accessed 8 January 2026.

Employers, particularly those from Small to Medium Enterprises (“SMEs”) who may be financially constrained from seeking private legal advice, may be interested to know that they likewise can make use of union representation before the ECT and in mediation for claims above $30,000 and up to $250,000. According to the Ministry of Manpower’s trade union directory,¹³Ministry of Manpower, Trade Union Directory, https://mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/trade-unions/trade-union-directory , last accessed 8 January 2026. there are three registered employer trade unions in Singapore: the Singapore National Employers Federation (“SNEF”), the Singapore Maritime Employers Federation, and the Print and Media Association, Singapore. Of the employer trade unions, SNEF has the broadest membership, and is likely to see the highest increase in demand for assistance in respect of workplace discrimination claims. Seemingly cognizant of this, SNEF has since issued a press release, noting that they are actively building capacity and developing in-house legal expertise in order to be fully equipped to represent members directly for claims and to provide advisory support.¹⁴SNEF, Press Release, “Building Capacity to Better Support Employers in Upholding Workplace Fairness” (4 November 2025), Building Capacity to Better Support Employers in Upholding Workplace Fairness – SNEF (last accessed 14 December 2025). Hence, once the Act comes into effect, we may see employer trade unions playing a more prominent role in such discrimination claims.

This shift in allowing representation by union representatives (for both employees and employers) underscores of the key role Singapore’s trade unions will play under the Act. Given the increased claim limit before the ECT, more claims will fall under the purview of the ECT and more employees are likely to bring claims of a higher value before the ECT. This will necessarily mean that more employees and employers will be in need of guidance and assistance by trade union representatives through this process. This was tacitly acknowledged by Mr. Ng Chee Meng, the Secretary General of the National Trade Unions Congress (“NTUC”), who noted in parliament that NTUC is increasing training for union leaders and industrial relations officers to handle workplace fairness claims.¹⁵Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Mr. Ng Chee Meng, Secretary-General of NTUC), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-766, last accessed 8 January 2026.

3. A ‘judge-led’ approach in the High Court

The judge-led model is already a mainstay at the ECT. Significantly, the Act now expressly provides that that this same approach will also be applied in in relation to discrimination claims heard by the General Division of the High Court. Section 36P of the Act specifies that where the General Division of the High Court is dealing with an action for discrimination, it is to adopt a “judge-led” approach. As part of this approach, the court is to:

(a) identify the relevant issues in the action; and

(b) ensure that the relevant evidence is adduced by the parties to the proceedings before the court.

This will include the power of the General Division of the High Court to seek evidence, make investigations and inquiries, as it sees fit.

Implementing a judge-led model will lead to greater consistency in how discrimination claims are resolved in the ECT and the High Court. Empowering High Court judges to adopt the judge-led approach utilised in the ECT will allow the High Court to identify the relevant issues and ensure relevant evidence is produced, which will help employees without legal assistance to navigate the process.¹⁶Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (4 November 2025) vol 96 (Dr. Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-766, last accessed 8 January 2026. There are clear benefits to this as can be seen from a study of eleven proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal, where a judge-led approach is also adopted. The study observed that where the Tribunal Magistrate was able to frame their questions simply, and asked questions to clarify the parties’ positions, parties were not disadvantaged for not knowing the law.¹⁷Johan Ding Kar En, ‘Singapore’s Informal Justice Experience: Evaluating the Practice of the Small Claims Tribunals’ (2024) 41 Sing L Review 109, at 138-139.

What will such an approach look like in practice in the High Court? Some insight can perhaps be gleaned from observing the Family Justice Courts. Part 8, rule 1 of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024 mandates that the Family Justice Courts are to adopt a judge-led approach and is very similar to Section 36P of the Act.¹⁸However, there are differences, and one is that the Family Justice Rules additionally mandate that the Family Justice Courts are to “take control of and set the timelines and give directions for the proceedings.”

Looking at Family Justice Court cases, there are a few advantages to applying a judge-led approach that one can foresee being applicable to discrimination claims:

First, a judge-led approach will likely help to ensure the efficient disposal of proceedings in sensitive disputes. In UTH v UTI [2019] SGFC 27, the Court noted at [41] that in highly charged disputes, a need for self-vindication may lead to “over mesmerisation of ensuring that every single point and background story is laid to rest”. The judge-led approach empowers courts to “identify and dovetail the proceedings to the key issues”.¹⁹See for e.g. UTH v UTI (on behalf of child) (2019) SGFC 27 at (41). This will help both employees and employers. One foreseeable example is where an aggrieved employee, in bringing a discrimination claim, belabours the process by treating their submissions as a form of emotional catharsis, detailing every single grievance and perceived slight. In such a situation, employers will surely be appreciative of a judge’s ability to exercise case management powers, while employees will also benefit from having their issues properly characterised and heard.

Second, in allowing judges greater autonomy over determining the evidence required, a judge-led approach may help to even out the perceived information asymmetry between employers and employees. In TIG v TIH [2015] SGHCF 12 at [28], the Court suggested that in pursuit of the achievement of just, expeditious and economical disposal of ancillaries, “in financial matters, where the evidence may be held closely by one party, the other party may in appropriate cases be given more latitude in seeking discovery, further evidence and cross-examination.”²⁰TIG v TIH (2015) SGHCF 12 at (28), Given the commonly held perception that employers hold an evidentiary advantage as they are often in possession of the bulk of work-related documents, a judge-led approach may therefore held to balance any such advantage out by giving the employee greater latitude. Of course, this works both ways as well – if a case turns largely on personal communications within only the employee’s possession and control, then the judge-led approach may benefit the employer by granting the employer greater latitude to obtain relevant documents that the employer may have ordinarily had a harder time accessing.

Third, a judge-led approach appears to allow the Courts a higher degree of procedural flexibility. Observing Family Justice Court cases, the judge-led approach has been used to, for example, permit the filing of a supplementary affidavit of evidence-in-chief,²¹WBA v WBB (2022) SGFC 112 allow an oral application to amend pleadings;²²VSR v VSS (2021) SGFC 76 cure the irregularity of a late affidavit;²³XKR v XKS (2025) SGFC 36 and permit the introduction of additional evidence.²⁴TYK v TYL (2017) SGFC 27 This will be important for parties with fewer resources and who may not be familiar with the procedures of Court, which, as all counsel know, can be tricky to navigate even with a legal background. This once again points to increasing accessibility.

However, case law has shown that there are limits to the judge-led approach, and it will not be an open mandate for the judge to have complete freedom:

1. The judge-led approach will not require the court to advance the cases of litigants-in-persons on their behalf. In the case of VYR v VYS [2023] 3 SLR 1370 at [19], the applicant, who had appeared as a litigant-in-person in family court proceedings, argued that the Magistrate in her case should have done more to clarify or put forth some pertinent points of her case to the respondent, even though she had chosen to conclude her cross-examination. The Family Division of the General Division of the High Court found that there was no reason why the Magistrate should have advocated on her behalf, and that the judge-led approach did not justify her demand. Instead, a “traditional umpire view” of judicial management applied. Therefore, self-represented employees who bring discrimination claims in the High Court should not hope that a judge-led approach will allow the judge to be their advocate.
2. Relatedly, a judge-led approach will allow the Court to be more direct in highlighting its concerns, but it may not go as far as correcting an erroneous case or make a party’s case for it.²⁵VBL v VBM (2019) SGFC 112
3. The judge-led approach does not provide a basis for the court to affect a third party’s substantive rights and remedies. In UDA v UDB and another [2018] 3 SLR 1433, a case involving division of assets upon divorce, a third-party applied to intervene (the “Intervener”) with respect to a disputed matrimonial asset. The Intervener argued that the Court had the power to determine her interest in the disputed property and make orders regarding the same. The High Court found that the “judge-led” approach did not establish a basis for the court to affect a third party’s substantive rights and remedies and instead ordered a stay of proceedings pending the conclusion of any civil action. On appeal, this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.²⁶UDA v UDB and another (2018) 1 SLR 1015 It is unclear how this will apply to workplace discrimination cases, but it highlights the challenges third parties may face if they attempt to intervene in a discrimination claim under the Act.

4. A step in the right direction

Ultimately, the passing of the Act marks a long-awaited step in the right direction towards building fairer and more harmonious workplaces. In introducing a statutory tort of discrimination, raising the ECT claim ceiling, and introducing a judge-led approach in the General Division of the High Court for discrimination claims, a clear signal has been sent that what is intended is a move towards a more accessible, transparent, and equitable dispute resolution system, even though questions remain about the practical implementation of these changes. By empowering employees and employers alike through clearer legal remedies, enhanced union support, and judicial guidance, the Act lays the groundwork for workplaces where fairness and equality can truly flourish.