Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Training bond

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2025

LEE BRIAN JEFFREY AIRASIA BERHAD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-31-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-31-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court affirmed that respondent substantially performed training obligations (MPL, type rating endorsements and in-house training), the RM100,000 bonded sum is a valid genuine pre-estimate of loss enforceable under s75 Contracts Act, the appellant breached the bond and gave insufficient notice entitling respondent to RM11,806.45 salary in lieu, the counterclaim was time-barred under the Limitation Act, and there was no basis for adverse inference or reversal for failure to cross-examine; accordingly the Sessions Court award of RM111,806.45 with interest and costs stands.
4 Mar 2025

Marwiya Binti Miswan Dede Resources Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-44-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-44-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the contractual phrase 'Floral Design Training Course' objectively required a structured, identifiable training program delivered over an identifiable period by identifiable trainers; routine on-the-job instruction did not meet that standard. Consequently the respondent failed to prove provision of such a course. Alternatively, even if training had been provided, the RM60,000 stipulation constituted an extravagant and disproportionate sum relative to the respondent's legitimate interest and was therefore unenforceable as unreasonable compensation under s.75 Contracts…
2 Dec 2020

FLYGLOBAL CHARTER SDN BHD (Company No.: 1187112-W) 1) SACHMUKH SINGH A/L CHANAN SINGH (I/C No.: 710902-10-5263) 2) MANJEET KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH (I/C No.: 740804-08-6078)

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-673-07/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-673-07/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendants failed to particularise or prove actionable misrepresentation; the training bond and guarantee were validly signed and separate from the LOA; breach by resignation during the bonded period was established; Section 75 entitles the plaintiff to enforce the agreed liquidated sum without proof of actual loss; extrinsic evidence contrary to the written bond is inadmissible under s91 Evidence Act; therefore defendants are jointly and severally liable for the bonded sum less lawful set-offs.
23 Nov 2020

KUGKAN A/L NEDUNCHERALATHAN AIR ASIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-1260-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-1260-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court exercised its discretion under s41 Specific Relief Act 1950 to grant a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a release letter under the contract of service and ordered the defendant to issue the release letter; the defendant's remedy for recovery of training costs under the separate training agreement remains a separate matter to be pursued via counterclaim.

Malaysia Case Law

LEE BRIAN JEFFREY AIRASIA BERHAD

Marwiya Binti Miswan Dede Resources Sdn Bhd

FLYGLOBAL CHARTER SDN BHD (Company No.: 1187112-W) 1) SACHMUKH SINGH A/L CHANAN SINGH (I/C No.: 710902-10-5263) 2) MANJEET KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH (I/C No.: 740804-08-6078)

KUGKAN A/L NEDUNCHERALATHAN AIR ASIA BERHAD