Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Condonation

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

AZMI BIN OSMAN 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA 4. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 5. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 6. ) Pengarah Jabatan

Citation

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that under s10 the applicant's service was deemed extended to the date of conviction and under s21 his conviction disentitled him to pension; the disciplinary proceedings' non-completion was irrelevant because conviction removed entitlement and the disciplinary authority lost jurisdiction on retirement; mandamus could not compel a discretionary grant by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, so judicial review failed and the application was dismissed.
26 Aug 2025

JAMIL SHAM BIN MD YUSOF 1. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-14-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-14-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to demonstrate procedural impropriety or prejudice from non‑disclosure; his written representation did not exculpate him; the disciplinary authority acted within its statutory powers and imposed a punishment permitted by the 1993 Regulations; there was no enforceable right of internal appeal; judicial review therefore dismissed.
13 May 2025

BALARAMAN A/L GOVENDAN LIU PEI DONG

Citation

BA-12B-18-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-18-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because applicant failed to provide a reasonable and evidential explanation for the one‑month delay in filing the extension application, failed to produce contemporaneous evidence of incapacity or reasonable steps taken to notify the appellant, did not personally affirm the supporting affidavit, and did not demonstrate prima facie prospects of success or address prejudice to the respondent; exercise of discretion therefore not warranted.
19 Mar 2025

Farah Masyitah binti Nordin 1. ) Tan Sri Dr. Mazlan bin Yusoff (dinamakan di atas kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia) 2. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia 3. ) Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri Pera

Citation

AA-25-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The dismissal was set aside because the seven‑year delay without credible explanation, combined with affirmative acts by the employer (promotions, increments, national award), amounted to tacit condonation; material procedural defects (failure to disclose attendance records and to give reasons or notice of appeal) deprived the applicant of a fair hearing; and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate given mitigating circumstances — therefore the disciplinary decision was unlawful and unsustainable.
14 Jan 2025

MUHAMAD IZWAN BIN MAZLAN 1. ) ACP MOHD AMAR BIN MOHAJIN (PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-182-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-182-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant failed to discharge the evidential burden to show the disciplinary board's decision was tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; the disciplinary process complied with the 1993 Regulations and Article 135(2), the Applicant admitted certain absences, produced no cogent medical evidence, and charges of bogus medical certificates established dishonesty warranting dismissal; therefore the judicial review is dismissed and the disciplinary decision is upheld.
9 Oct 2024

THOMVELL INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD JENNIFER MARY MAGDALINE

Citation

WA-16-8-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-16-8-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Labour Court's factual finding that the respondent did not consent to the salary deduction because the alleged acceptance document was rejected as not genuine and the respondent's unchallenged evidence showed no agreement or condonation; absent consent and contemporaneous proof of financial necessity the unilateral deduction breached the employment contract, entitling the respondent to arrears; appellate interference was unwarranted as there was no misdirection in the Labour Court's evaluation of evidence.
4 Sept 2024

SITI SUHANA BINTI SUID 1. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the special circumstances required by the Godfrey Philips test; the availability of damages as an adequate remedy meant irreparable harm was not shown and the balance of convenience and public interest favoured the respondents.
4 Sept 2024

SITI SUHANA BINTI SUID 1. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant failed to establish the special circumstances required to justify a stay: damages are an adequate alternative remedy to address the alleged loss if the applicant succeeds, the balance of convenience and public interest favour the respondents because a stay would risk public funds and reinstate pay to an employee who may ultimately be lawfully dismissed; consequently the stay application was dismissed.
18 Jan 2024

HADZRI BIN ABDUL HAMID MENG LIGHT ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

PA-16-9-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-16-9-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Industrial Court correctly found on the evidence that the Respondent's delay in paying July 2021 salary did not amount to a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract; the Appellant failed to prove employer misconduct and had himself breached duties by absenting from office and failing to submit a required report; on this basis the claim of constructive dismissal fails and the High Court affirms the Industrial Court award.
5 Oct 2023

CHONG FUI THUNG SENA DIECASTING INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Citation

W-01(A)-112-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-112-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court erred as a matter of law by determining an unpleaded issue of condonation against the appellant; condonation is primarily an employer-side doctrine and cannot be applied vicariously against an employee in the circumstances; the Industrial Court’s factual findings that the appellant was a workman and was constructively dismissed without just cause were within jurisdiction and not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the High Court order quashing the Industrial Court award was set aside and the award reinstated.