KHOO EE KEAT BROWNLAND PROPERTIES (M) SDN BHD

KHOO EE KEAT BROWNLAND PROPERTIES (M) SDN BHD

The High Court held the signed employment contract was valid and binding; the plaintiff breached the contract by resigning before the 3‑year term and by working for a competitor; the defendant proved breach and the existence of a contractual termination fee of RM300,000 such that under s75 Contracts Act the defendant is entitled to compensation up to that amount and the plaintiff failed to prove the clause unreasonable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-155-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: KHOO EE KEAT; Respondent/defendant: BROWNLAND PROPERTIES (M) SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 June 2023
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-155-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment to High Court (hearing and Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination Fee, Penalty Clause, Breach of Contract, Duress/undue Influence, Constructive Dismissal, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Termination Fee Penalty Clause Breach of Contract Duress/undue Influence Constructive Dismissal +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KHOO EE KEAT

Appellant/plaintiff

BROWNLAND PROPERTIES (M) SDN BHD

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment to High Court (hearing and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment contract was valid
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff breached the terms of the employment contract
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to claim the contract termination fee under the employment contract

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the signed employment contract was valid and binding; the plaintiff breached the contract by resigning before the 3‑year term and by working for a competitor; the defendant proved breach and the existence of a contractual termination fee of RM300,000 such that under s75 Contracts Act the defendant is entitled to compensation up to that amount and the plaintiff failed to prove the clause unreasonable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Counterclaim allowed for RM300000.00 in accordance with the contract termination clause
  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM6000.00 awarded to the respondent