TAN CHENG LENG 1. ) PWB (M) SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

TAN CHENG LENG 1. ) PWB (M) SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

The High Court held the Industrial Court's award was based on findings of fact and witness credibility concerning the two evaluations and scoring; the handbook clause was not shown to be incorporated into the employment contract; there was no Wednesbury or jurisdictional error; therefore the Industrial Court's decision that non-confirmation was with just cause and excuse stands and is not amenable to judicial review.

Citation
WA-25-390-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Tan Cheng Leng; 1st Respondent: PWB (M) Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Respondent: Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Case Number
WA-25-390-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (permohonan Semakan Kehakiman) / Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Probation and Confirmation, Termination for Non Confirmation, Incorporation of Employee Handbook Into Contract, Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Anisminic Error, Credibility Findings and Immunity From Judicial Review, Remedies: Certiorari/mandamus
Source Language
Malay/English
Employment/labour Law Administrative Law Contract Law Probation and Confirmation Termination for Non Confirmation Incorporation of Employee Handbook Into Contract Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Anisminic Error Credibility Findings and Immunity From Judicial Review +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Cheng Leng

Applicant

PWB (M) Sdn. Bhd.

1st Respondent

Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (permohonan Semakan Kehakiman) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 2.4.1 of the employer's handbook forming a mandatory three-evaluation requirement was incorporated into the employment contract
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Court erred in law by ignoring the employer's alleged failure to conduct a third evaluation
  3. 3 Whether the non-confirmation/termination was with just cause and excuse

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Industrial Court's award was based on findings of fact and witness credibility concerning the two evaluations and scoring; the handbook clause was not shown to be incorporated into the employment contract; there was no Wednesbury or jurisdictional error; therefore the Industrial Court's decision that non-confirmation was with just cause and excuse stands and is not amenable to judicial review.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed with costs of RM5,000 subject to allocatur