As enacted

Commentary · As enacted

Withholding of salary: ECT decision on salary deductions and set-off

The text

DISCLAIMER: This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be, nor should it be, regarded as or relied upon as legal advice. Court decisions referred to herein may be subject to further appeal at the time of publication, and subsequent developments in the law, including new legislation, amendments, court decisions or practice directions, may affect the accuracy or relevance of the matters discussed. We are under no duty to update this publication to reflect any such changes in the law. You should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action or omitting to take action in relation to matters discussed herein.

WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability

Partnerships Act 2005.

Withholding of Salary: ECT Decision on Salary

Deductions and Set-Off

In JKD v JKE [2026] SGECT 12, handed down on 25 August 2026, the Employment Claims Tribunals

(ECT) held that an employer was not entitled to withhold an employee’s earned salary on account of compensation it said the employee owed for breaching a training bond, and allowed the employee’s claim for unpaid salary in full.

The ECT ruled that earned salary must be paid according to the timelines fixed by the Employment Act 1968 (EA) and the employment contract, and that no deduction may be made from earned salary unless the EA expressly authorises it. Neither the employee’s agreement to pay bond compensation nor the employer’s cross-claim for that compensation gave the employer any lawful basis to deduct or withhold the earned salary. Equitable set-off cannot operate against earned wages, and legal set-off is procedural only and does not displace the obligation to pay. The ECT also held that a cross-claim for training bond compensation falls outside its jurisdiction and that an employer with a cross-claim must pay the employee the salary first and pursue the cross-claim through the proper legal channels thereafter.

Background

The claimant employee (Employee) was employed by the respondent company (Employer) as a pre-school assistant teacher. She claimed $5,877.91, representing unpaid salary from 1 February 2026 to her last day of employment on 10 April 2026. The Employer did not dispute that the sum claimed was earned.

However, the Employer argued that it was entitled to withhold payment in connection with the Employee’s purported breach of a training bond, which, on the Employer’s account, rendered the Employee liable for

$20,745.20 in compensation.

The bond arose from the Employee’s enrolment in a training course offered by the National Institute of

Early Childhood Development to obtain a professional diploma in early childhood care and education.

She enrolled as part of a place-and-train arrangement under which she was employed by the Employer to receive on-the-job training while the Employer sponsored her studies and paid her a monthly salary throughout the course. The terms, which the Employee accepted on 12 December 2023, provided for a bond period commencing on the date she obtained her diploma, which was 24 September 2025, and running until 31 December 2027. A breach would render the Employee liable to compensate the

Employer for one month’s gross salary, the full course fee, and any other expenses the Employer had incurred. The training bond letter was silent as to the quantum of that liability.

The Employee resigned on 11 January 2026 for personal reasons and served her full three months’

notice. In her resignation letter, she accepted that she was “willing to … pay the bond compensation” as agreed. A dispute over quantum then emerged. The Employee understood the compensation to be about

Salary Deductions | Set-Off

WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability

Partnerships Act 2005.

$5,000, while the Employer claimed approximately $22,227.

90. The Employee asked for documentary proof of the course fees and of the sums the Employer had actually paid. None was produced.

On 24 February 2026, the Employer issued a letter (February Letter) revising the compensation figure to $20,745.20 and requiring payment by 26 February 2026, failing which the Employer reserved “the right to set off or deduct the outstanding amount against any monies payable to you”. The Employer withheld the Employee’s salary for February and March 2026, and the first ten days of April until the end of her employment.

The ECT’s Decision

The ECT allowed the Employee’s claim in full, ordering payment of $5,877.91, together with $300 in costs and $40 in disbursements on the basis that she had been compelled to commence proceedings for no reason other than the unlawful withholding of her earned salary.

Earned salary must be paid on the timelines fixed by the EA

Under section 21(1) of the EA, an employer must pay salary earned before the expiry of the seventh day after the last day of the relevant salary period. A different rule applies where the employee terminates the contract. Where the employee resigns on notice, section 23(1) of the EA requires the total salary due to be paid on the day on which the contract of service is terminated. Failure to comply with salary payment obligations under the EA is a criminal offence under section 34, and that includes obligations as to the timing of payment and not merely the obligation to pay at all. The ECT took the view that Parliament’s attachment of criminal liability to salary-related offences under the EA signals that timely payment of salary is of fundamental importance, salary being the primary means by which most employees meet their daily needs, so that withholding it can inflict real and immediate hardship.

No salary deduction may be made unless authorised under the EA

The general position under the EA is that no deduction may be made from earned salary unless it is authorised under the EA, required by a court order, or directed by some other specified body or authority, as provided under section 26(1). An employer cannot withhold an employee’s salary simply because it is dissatisfied with her conduct. Nor may an employer make deductions from earned salary as it sees fit.

Permitted deduction by consent – agreement to pay compensation is not consent to a deduction

Section 27(1)(i) of the EA permits a salary deduction where the employee has given written consent. The

ECT took the view that the training bond letter could not constitute such consent. The letter recorded the

Employee’s agreement to pay compensation if she did not fulfil her bond obligations, and an agreement to pay compensation is not the same thing as a consent to have that amount deducted from salary otherwise owed. The former creates a personal liability enforceable through the ordinary legal processes.

The latter is a specific authorisation for the employer to effect a deduction against remuneration otherwise due. One does not, without more, give rise to the other.

WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability

Partnerships Act 2005.

Section 27(1A) of the EA further provides that written consent to a deduction under section 27(1)(i) may be withdrawn at any time before the deduction is made. On receiving the February Letter, the Employee had informed the Employer that she “[did] not consent to any deduction from [her] salary or final payments without lawful basis and proper substantiation”. The ECT took the view that this constituted an effective withdrawal of any consent that might otherwise have been inferred from the training bond letter.

Section 27(1)(i) therefore afforded the Employer no basis for the deductions it made.

Permitted deduction for unearned employment benefit – a sponsored training benefit is an earned entitlement once the employee accepts bond obligations

Section 27(1)(f) of the EA authorises a salary deduction representing an “unearned employment benefit”.

“Employment benefit” is defined in section 27(3) to mean any benefit derived by an employee from being employed, other than salary. The ECT accepted that fees paid by an employer to sponsor an employee’s attendance at an external training course could fall within that definition, and that the sponsorship of the

Employee’s studies did so.

The EA does not define the term “unearned”. The ECT took the view that whether an employment benefit is earned or unearned turns on whether the employee was legally entitled to it. That reading is supported by section 27(3)(b)(i) of the EA, which offers as an example of an “employment benefit” any annual leave taken in excess of entitlement. That provision is better understood as an illustration of an unearned employment benefit, since the benefit becomes unearned only when the employee takes leave beyond the employee’s legal entitlement.

Applying that principle, the ECT found that the Employee was legally entitled to the training sponsorship, and that section 27(1)(f) provided no lawful basis for the deductions:

(a)

The training sponsorship had been offered and accepted as part of a bilateral arrangement, under which the Employee had agreed to attend the training programme and to be bound by the terms of the training bond, including the obligation to serve out the bond period or pay compensation upon early departure. By accepting those obligations, the Employee had become legally entitled to the sponsorship.

(b)

The sponsorship was the consideration she received in exchange for the obligations she had undertaken. In that sense, it was fully earned. Her subsequent choice not to fulfil the bond period did not retroactively render the original benefit unearned. That choice gave rise to a separate contractual liability for compensation, but did not alter the character of the benefit at the time it had been conferred.

Equitable set-off cannot operate against earned salary

The ECT held that, even if the Employer’s cross-claim for training bond compensation were sufficiently closely connected with the Employee’s primary salary claim to satisfy the test for substantive equitable set-off, allowing equitable set-off to operate in this context would be incompatible with the statutory regime restricting deductions from salary under the EA.

WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability

Partnerships Act 2005.

To allow an employer to invoke equitable set-off as a self-help remedy against earned wages would circumvent the very legislative policy that sections 26(1) and 27 of the EA were enacted to protect. While the EA does not expressly exclude equitable set-off, it would be incongruous to permit it to undermine the statutory framework from within.

Legal set-off does not extinguish the right to be paid

Legal set-off is a procedural device rather than a substantive one. It permits a respondent to have its cross-claim determined in the same proceedings as the claimant’s primary claim, rather than satisfying judgment first and pursuing a separate action afterwards, and it does not alter the parties’ underlying rights and obligations.

Even if the Employer held a genuine cross-claim, legal set-off would not extinguish the Employee’s substantive right to be paid her salary in accordance with the timelines prescribed by the EA and her employment contract. It would at best provide a procedural mechanism by which the Employer’s cross-claim might be heard alongside the Employee’s primary claim, provided the ECT had jurisdiction to entertain it at all, which it did not.

ECT jurisdiction confined to specified disputes under the Employment Claims Act 2016

Whether a tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a set-off cross-claim depends on whether that cross-claim itself falls within its jurisdiction. The ECT observed that this principle applies equally to the ECT, and that it cannot exceed the bounds of the jurisdiction established under the Employment Claims Act 2016 (ECA).

The ECT’s jurisdiction is confined to adjudicating specified employment disputes under section 12(4) of the ECA. While that jurisdiction extends to contractual disputes arising out of or in the course of employment under a contract of service, it does so only to the extent that the claim falls within a category specified in the First Schedule, as the definitions of “specified employment dispute” and “specified contractual dispute” under section 2(1) of the ECA make plain. The Employer’s cross-claim did not fall within any of the specified contractual dispute categories in the First Schedule.

The Employer therefore could not, by the device of legal set-off, bring before the ECT its cross-claim for training bond compensation as this was a dispute that lay beyond the ECT’s authority to resolve.

Key Takeaways

This decision underscores several important considerations for employers:

(a)

Employers must pay earned salary on time: Timely payment of salary is of fundamental importance and an employer cannot use salary as a bargaining chip against its employees. An employer’s failure to comply with its salary payment obligations under the EA (including obligations as to the timing of payment, and not merely the obligation to pay) is a criminal offence. Employers should ensure that payroll and HR teams are aware that salary may not be

WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability

Partnerships Act 2005.

withheld or deducted in response to any disputed claims with employees, regardless of the employer’s belief in the merits of the claim. Salary must be paid on the statutory due dates.

(b)

Salary deductions are permitted only in limited circumstances: No deduction may be made from an employee’s salary unless it is authorised under the EA, required by a court order, or directed by some other specified body or authority. Where an employer wishes to obtain an employee’s written consent to any salary deduction, such consent must be expressly and clearly documented and in compliance with section 27 of the EA – though the employer should note that the employee may withdraw his or her consent without penalty at any time before the deduction is made.

(c)

Maintain documentary records: Where an employer has provided any sponsorship or equivalent to an employee for which the employer has a right to claim back any amount, the employer should always retain clear records (invoices, receipts, and subsidy documentation) of the actual costs incurred. These will be essential in any claim to recover compensation.

If you would like information and/or assistance on the above or any other area of law, you may wish to contact the Partner at WongPartnership whom you normally work with or any of the following Partners:

Jenny TSIN

Co-Head – Employment

Partner – Commercial & Corporate Disputes

Vivien YUI

Co-Head – Employment

Partner – Mergers & Acquisitions

CHANG Qi-Yang

Partner – Employment and

Commercial & Corporate Disputes

LIM Jia Ying

Partner – Employment and

Mergers & Acquisitions

HO Wei Jie

Partner – Employment and

Commercial & Corporate Disputes

ONG Pei Chin

Partner – Commercial & Corporate

Disputes

WPG MEMBERS AND OFFICES

- contactus@wongpartnership.com

SINGAPORE

WongPartnership LLP

12 Marina Boulevard Level 28

Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3

Singapore 018982

t +65 6416 8000

f +65 6532 5711/5722

CHINA

WongPartnership LLP

Shanghai Representative Office

Unit 1015 Link Square 1 222 Hubin Road

Shanghai 200021, PRC t +86 21 6340 3131

f +86 21 6340 3315

INDONESIA

Makes & Partners Law Firm

Menara Batavia, 7th Floor

Jl. KH. Mas Mansyur Kav.

Jakarta 10220, Indonesia t +62 21 574 7181

f +62 21 574 7180

w makeslaw.com

MALAYSIA

Cheang & Ariff

Advocates & Solicitors

Loke Mansion 273A, Jalan Medan Tuanku 50300 Kuala Lumpur t +60 3 2691 0803

f +60 3 2693 4475

w cheangariff.com

Foong & Partners

Advocates & Solicitors 13-1, Menara 1MK, Kompleks 1 Mont' Kiara

No 1 Jalan Kiara, Mont' Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia t +60 3 6419 0822

f +60 3 6419 0823

w foongpartners.com

MIDDLE EAST

Al Aidarous Advocates and Legal Consultants

Abdullah Al Mulla Building, Mezzanine Suite 02 39 Hameem Street (side street of Al Murroor Street)

Al Nahyan Camp Area

P.O. Box No. 71284

Abu Dhabi, UAE t +971 2 6439 222

f +971 2 6349 229

w aidarous.com

Al Aidarous Advocates and Legal Consultants

Oberoi Centre, 13th Floor, Marasi Drive, Business Bay

P.O. Box No. 33299

Dubai, UAE t +971 4 2828 000

f +971 4 2828 011

PHILIPPINES

Gruba Law 27/F 88 Corporate Center 141 Valero St., Salcedo Village

Makati City 1227, Philippines t +63 2 889 6060

f +63 2 889 6066

w grubalaw.com wongpartnership.com