Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services: Unfair Dismissal & Data Breach

In Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Dr. Tan, a neurosurgeon, against his former employer, Singapore Health Services, for wrongful dismissal and negligence. Dr. Tan was dismissed for breaching patient confidentiality by accessing medical records of patients not under his care, alleging unethical practices by a colleague. The court, presided over by Chua Lee Ming J, dismissed Dr. Tan's claims, finding that the dismissal was justified due to the data breaches and that the hospital had followed due process.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dr. Tan's claim for wrongful dismissal and negligence against Singapore Health Services was dismissed due to unauthorized access of patient records.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tan Tung Wee EddieClaimantIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Singapore Health Services Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kuah Boon ThengLegal Clinic LLC
Yong Shuk Lin VanessaLegal Clinic LLC
Shenna TjoaLegal Clinic LLC

4. Facts

  1. The claimant, a neurosurgeon, was employed by the defendant.
  2. The claimant accessed medical records of patients not under his care.
  3. The claimant alleged unethical practices by a colleague.
  4. The defendant dismissed the claimant for breach of patient confidentiality.
  5. The claimant claimed his dismissal was wrongful and the defendant was negligent.
  6. The claimant admitted to accessing the records to highlight unsafe practices and validate his concerns.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd, Originating Claim No 361 of 2023, [2025] SGHC 10

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Claimant employed as Associate Consultant neurosurgeon
Claimant messaged Associate Professor David Low Chyi Yeu about a serious issue regarding Dr Chen
A/P Low and A/P Ang met with the claimant
Claimant sent A/P Low a list of nine individuals from the Neurosurgery Department to speak to regarding Dr Chen
A/P Low sent an email to the claimant with a summary of their discussion on 14 September 2020
A/P Ang and A/P Low met with the claimant and explained their findings
Claimant promoted to Consultant Neurosurgeon
Defendant issued an internal circular reminding its employees to keep all corporate and patient data confidential
Claimant sent a photograph of the operating theatre list for the next day to A/P Low
Claimant sent an email titled “Rampant favouritism in the Depart of Neurosurgery, NNI” to the defendant’s Group Chief Executive Officer (“GCEO”) at the time, Professor Ivy Ng
Prof Ng informed A/P Au and A/P Low that she would appoint a Review Panel
Surgery on Patient A was carried out at the NNI Campus at TTSH
Patient A’s case was discussed at a meeting of the Department of Neurosurgery
Claimant emailed A/P Au, A/P Ang and A/P Low and referred to “revelations” at the meeting of the Department of Neurosurgery on 5 February 2021
Prof Ng was notified of an anonymous whistleblower report
The Chairman of the Division of Surgery at TTSH informed A/P Low that TTSH had received the whistleblower report regarding Patient A
A/P Low discussed Patient A’s case with the Chairman of the Medical Board at TTSH
Prof Ng received another email titled “Patient safety concern in Department of Neurosurgery, NNI” from the claimant
A/P Au informed Prof Ng that the claimant had raised the same issues regarding Patient A to him
A/P Low informed Dr Chen and Dr Kirollos that they were not to engage in any operative procedure together until the conclusion of the investigations, without prior approval
Dr Kirollos and Dr Chen carried out an elective surgery on Patient B
Patient B passed away
Claimant sent an email titled “Criminal act in Singapore General Hospital” to Prof Ng
Prof Ng informed A/P Low that an independent COI would be appointed to investigate the issues raised by the claimant
Prof Ng informed the claimant of the decision to appoint an independent COI
The First COI presented its report
Prof Ng was informed of a whistleblower’s report which made reference to Patient B’s emergency surgery on 26 June 2021
The Second COI issued its report
Another independent COI was convened to investigate whether the claimant had committed a pattern of unauthorised access to the case notes and records of patients not directly under his care (the “ET COI”)
The claimant was informed of the ET COI and was invited to provide his written response by 18 November 2021
The claimant submitted his written response to the ET COI
The ET COI interviewed the claimant
The ET COI delivered its report
The SDC reviewed and discussed the ET COI’s report and received inputs from Dr Goh, A/P Au and the Chief Human Resource Officer of NNI
The SDC met again
The claimant was served with a letter dismissing him with immediate effect
The defendant lodged a police report in respect of the data breaches committed by the claimant, for “record purposes”
The defendant informed the Singapore Medical Council (“SMC”) that the claimant had been dismissed
The defendant informed the SMC of its decision not to file a formal complaint
The defendant reported the claimant’s data breaches to the Ministry of Health
The defendant received a letter from the claimant’s then lawyers, M/s WMH Law Corporation
The defendant decided to lodge a formal complaint against the claimant with the SMC
The Singapore Police Force informed the defendant that it had completed its investigations and decided to administer a warning to the claimant in lieu of prosecution
The claimant submitted his written explanation to the SMC
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Claimant’s Skeletal Submissions dated
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Wrongful Dismissal
    • Outcome: The court held that the dismissal was justified due to the claimant's unauthorized access of patient records.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of contract
      • Failure to follow disciplinary procedure
      • Justification for dismissal
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 2 SLR 386
  2. Breach of Patient Confidentiality
    • Outcome: The court found that the claimant had breached patient confidentiality by accessing medical records without authorization.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorized access to medical records
      • Justification for accessing confidential information
      • Data breach
  3. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was not negligent in its decision to dismiss the claimant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty of care to protect future employability
      • Standard of care in disciplinary proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Payment of forfeited bonuses and unconsumed annual leave
  2. Payment of salary for the contractual termination notice period
  3. Loss of future earnings
  4. Loss of amenity
  5. Aggravated damages
  6. Punitive damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Employment Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Al Sadeq v Dechert LLPEnglish Court of AppealYes[2024] 3 WLR 403England and WalesCited for the explanation of the iniquity exception to legal professional privilege.
Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 386SingaporeCited for the principle that, absent a contractual term to the contrary, an employer is not obliged to accord an employee any particular process before taking action.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Medical Registration Act 1997Singapore
Computer Misuse Act 1993Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Patient confidentiality
  • Data breach
  • Wrongful dismissal
  • Unauthorised access
  • Medical records
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Employment contract
  • SingHealth Disciplinary Council
  • Committee of Inquiry
  • Gross misconduct

15.2 Keywords

  • Employment
  • Dismissal
  • Data Breach
  • Confidentiality
  • Medical
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Employment Law95
Unfair Dismissal80
Termination75
Patient Confidentiality65
Negligence60
Litigation50
Breach of Contract40
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility30
Data Protection Law25

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Data Protection
  • Medical Ethics
  • Contract Law