Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dismissal

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2026

SITI SUHANA BINTI SUID 1. ) Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Pengurusan (No.2), Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan 2. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-209-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-209-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the disciplinary processes were lawful: the Show Cause Letters correctly stated a prima facie case and did not predetermine guilt; omissions alleged (documents, delay, inclusion of non-working days) did not amount to procedural unfairness; no statutory duty to allow separate mitigation or to give reasons arose; DAB lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal after the applicant’s dismissal; accordingly both judicial review applications were dismissed.
9 Oct 2025

FLASH MALAYSIA EXPRESS SDN BHD MUHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN AZMI

Citation

JB-16-6-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-16-6-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the show‑cause letter together with the respondent's admission to the misconduct (habitual late coming) constituted 'due inquiry' under section 14 of the Employment Act 1955; therefore no domestic inquiry was required and summary dismissal without notice was justified. The Labour Court's award was set aside and the appeal allowed.
1 Oct 2025

MOHD SAIFUL RAZIEE BIN TUKIMAN 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

JB-25-6-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-25-6-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no procedural illegality, irrationality or disproportionality: the charges contained necessary particulars, relevant documents were provided, written representations satisfied the right to be heard, Regulations 35 and 37 were complied with, and there was no legal duty to furnish reasons in the circumstances; therefore the Applicants' judicial review applications are dismissed.
15 May 2025

BIMAL PILLAI 1. ) BRB MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) BRB INTERNATIONAL B. V. 3. ) PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD 4. ) NIK AMRI BIN NIK MOHAMED 5. ) PAUL ANTHONY TAYLOR 6. ) AMRI BIN RAZALI

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1953-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1953-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Security for costs was ordered because on the uncontested evidence (after striking out the defective affidavit) the plaintiff is an Indian national ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, admitted inability to pay, produced no proof of assets or immigration status in Malaysia, and there was a real risk defendants could not enforce costs abroad; exercising judicial discretion under Order 23 r 1(1) the court found it just to order RM25,000 security per application and costs of RM6,000 per application with striking out on non-payment.
17 Apr 2024

Mohd Aiman Bin Balpaki 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-28-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-28-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where a disciplinary decision may deprive an individual of the constitutional right to continue in public service (Art 5) and thus affect livelihood, the decision-maker must give adequate reasons; the Disciplinary Board's failure to provide reasons amounted to procedural impropriety and its decisions were quashed.
21 Sept 2023

NOOR AZAM BIN SALLEH 1. ) JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB 1, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI 4. ) KETUA

Citation

BA-25-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety: the charges were clear and within Regulations 28 and 45 of the IRBM Disciplinary Regulations 2008, the applicant was afforded opportunity to be heard, absence was unauthorized, condonation was not established, and therefore no basis existed to quash or interfere with the disciplinary or appeal decisions.
12 May 2021

DHL Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 1. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia 2. Kintan binti Bachik

Citation

JA-25-5-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-5-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court found no reviewable error: the Industrial Court did not transgress illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; the frustration argument was a later afterthought and could not displace the Industrial Court's finding that dismissal for misconduct was without just cause or excuse; the applicant had effectively abrogated its own winding-down scheme by dismissing the employee and thus the Industrial Court's award of compensation and backwages stands.
4 May 2021

YAHAYA BIN WAHI 1. ) TAN SRI DR KHAIR BIN MOHAMAD YUSOF 2. ) PEJABAT PENDIDIKAN DAERAH HULU PERAK 3. ) Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri 4. ) KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

AB-25-5-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-25-5-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondents breached mandatory procedural protections by denying the applicant the statutorily prescribed right of appeal under the 1994 Education Service Regulations and failed to consider material medical evidence and relevant factors; the disciplinary decision was therefore procedurally improper, irrational and illegal and is quashed by certiorari; applicant to be reinstated and entitled to damages and costs.
15 Mar 2021

TAI CHIN YEE 1. ) TONG SAN CHAN DISTRIBUTORS SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-25-21-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-21-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Employer failed to discharge legal burden: late admission that signatures were not forged destroyed the factual foundation of the charges; applicant had given positive evidence she acted on superior's instructions and employer did not call or attempt to call the superior to rebut, permitting adverse inference under Evidence Act and shifting evidential burden; Industrial Court's acceptance of employer's case was therefore illegal and irrational and its award was quashed; equitable factors justified awarding compensation in lieu without deducting post-dismissal earnings.
8 Feb 2021

SHAHARUDIN BIN YAAKOB (NO. K/P: 710313-09-5087 1. PENS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 151564-P) 2. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

KA-25-16-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-25-16-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the Industrial Court fell into serious errors of law and procedural impropriety by failing to address proportionality, condonation, burden of proof and alternative sanctions; accordingly the Award (No.2313/2019) was quashed by certiorari and the High Court substituted compensation orders rather than reinstatement.