Sample Kit — Fictional Scenario

Lawyer-Ready Case Kit

This is what your personalised Kit looks like. Below is a fictional Singapore employment dispute to demonstrate the depth and quality of analysis you'll receive.

EmploymentSingapore

Unpaid Salary & Wrongful Termination

A marketing manager at a mid-size tech company was terminated without notice after raising concerns about 3 months of unpaid salary. The employer claims poor performance, but no formal warnings were issued.

Lawyer-Ready Case Kit — S$29

Everything you need to walk into a lawyer's office prepared

Case Theory

Strong case for salary recovery; moderate-to-strong case for wrongful dismissal

78%

Based on analysis of 47 similar Singapore employment cases, employees in comparable situations have recovered unpaid wages in approximately 89% of cases. Wrongful dismissal claims without prior written warnings succeed in approximately 67% of cases before the Employment Claims Tribunal.

Key Findings

Unpaid Salary Claim

92% confidence

Under the Employment Act (Part III), employers must pay salary within 7 days of the salary period. Three months of non-payment constitutes a clear breach. The Employment Claims Tribunal has consistently ruled in favour of employees in similar cases.

Wrongful Termination

67% confidence

Termination without notice and without prior written warnings weakens the employer's 'poor performance' defence. However, the strength of this claim depends on whether you were covered under the Employment Act and the specific terms of your employment contract.

Retaliation Argument

58% confidence

The timing of termination (shortly after raising salary concerns) may support a retaliation argument. While Singapore law doesn't have explicit whistleblower protections for salary complaints, the Employment Claims Tribunal considers the circumstances of dismissal.

Similar Court Cases

4 of 47 shown
87% match

Lim Wei Ming v TechVentures Pte Ltd [2023] SGECT 142

Outcome

Employee awarded 3 months' unpaid salary plus 1 month's salary in lieu of notice

Why it's relevant

Nearly identical fact pattern — unpaid salary followed by termination without warning

79% match

Tan Siew Ling v Digital Solutions Asia [2022] SGECT 089

74% match

Rajesh Kumar v MediaCorp Services [2023] SGECT 201

68% match

Sarah Chen v Fintech Hub Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 156

Evidence Checklist

3 of 10 items collected

Employment contract (signed copy)
critical
Payslips for the last 6 months
critical
Bank statements showing salary gaps
critical
Termination letter or email
critical
Any written performance reviews or warnings
high
Email/WhatsApp messages about salary concerns
high
Company handbook or HR policies
medium
Correspondence with HR about the termination
high
Witness statements from colleagues (if available)
medium
CPF contribution records
medium

Case Timeline

Month 1

First month of unpaid salary

Month 2

Second month unpaid; raised concern with manager verbally

Month 3

Third month unpaid; sent email to HR requesting payment

Month 3 + 2 weeks

Terminated with immediate effect; cited 'poor performance'

Note

Some employment claims have time limits — check the relevant limitation period for your jurisdiction

Common Procedural Pathway (Informational)

Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT)

Claims under $20,000 for non-PME or $30,000 for PME employees. Faster and lower cost than civil court.

Timeline

3–6 months from filing to resolution

Filing Cost

$10–$20 filing fee

1

Attempt mediation through TADM (Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management)

2

If mediation fails, file a claim with the Employment Claims Tribunal

3

Prepare evidence bundle (see checklist above)

4

Attend hearing — legal representation is optional at ECT

Get Your Own Kit

Answer ~6 questions about your situation and receive a personalised Lawyer-Ready Case Kit with analysis, evidence checklist, and similar cases — all in about 7 minutes.

Free preview included. Kit unlock: S$29. No subscription required.

This sample uses a fictional scenario for demonstration purposes only. Case names and citations are illustrative. Actual results will vary based on your specific circumstances. Precedent provides legal research, not legal advice.