Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wrongful dismissal

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2025

UNIJAYA ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SDN BHD MUHAMMAD IZZUDDIN BIN AB RAHIM

Citation

BA-16-46-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-46-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the DGM's finding because the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving on the substantive merits that the Respondent's misconduct justified immediate termination; warning letters lacked sufficient clarity and the Appellant did not demonstrate just cause or excuse such that failure to hold a domestic inquiry could be excused, therefore the dismissal was wrongful and the DGM's award stands.
19 Sept 2024

JET VALET SDN BHD 1. ) LUKMAN HAKIM BIN MOHD ZAKI 2. ) NORZALINA BINTI HARON

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-474-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-474-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Applicant failed to prove the existence of special circumstances to justify a stay under Order 92 r.4. The Sessions Court and Industrial Court proceedings involve different causes of action and remedies, the Industrial Court matter is at a nascent stage, and the application amounted to an attempt to delay; therefore the stay was refused and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
12 Aug 2024

XXXX SOMYANARAIN NALLA PILLAI A/L MUNUSAMY

Citation

WA-16A-17-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-16A-17-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no appealable error: the Industrial Court correctly confined itself to reasons in the termination letter, the University failed to prove allegations (lateness unpunished, WhatsApp allegations hearsay/unparticularised, police report not prohibited by contract), the respondent was dismissed without just cause or excuse, reinstatement was impracticable, and the compensation award of RM156,000 with costs was justified and thus affirmed.
21 Mar 2024

MOHD RADZLAN BIN JALALUDIN 1. ) EDUCATION MALAYSIA GLOBAL SERVICES 2. ) DATUK SERI MOHAMED KHALED BIN NORDIN

Citation

BA-21NCvC-13-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-13-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court struck out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim as an abuse of process because the dispute over wrongful dismissal falls squarely within the statutory remedy under s.20 IRA and the Industrial Court is the appropriate forum; the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action in the High Court and the contractual clause relied upon was not effective at dismissal, therefore the action could not be maintained in this court.
13 Feb 2024

DA-22NCvC-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

DA-22NCvC-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's civil claim was an abuse of process because wrongful dismissal disputes fall within the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and the Industrial Court; alternatively on the merits the defendant lawfully terminated employment for gross misconduct and conflict of interest, there was no actionable defamation, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs.
28 Nov 2023

LEE LAI FATT UCSI University

Citation

JA-23NCvC-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-23NCvC-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff's claim concerned dismissal matters that fall within the Industrial Court's statutory jurisdiction; the plaintiff had previously litigated the same subject in the Industrial Court which dismissed the claim without liberty to reinstate and had not appealed under s.33C; therefore the High Court proceeding was an abuse of process and plainly unsustainable and was struck out with costs to the defendant.
29 Sept 2023

SYMPHONY LIFE BERHAD 1. ) NG YING YIING 2. ) GOH HOCK CHOY 3. ) DOA HUAT HOLDINGS SDN BHD 4. ) ERNST & YOUNG CONSULTING SDN.BHD. 5. ) Brian Wong Wye Pong

Citation

BA-22NCvC-36-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-36-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counterclaim was struck out because, on the pleadings and evidentiary record, Ernst & Young Consulting Sdn Bhd owed no duty of care to Ng Ying Yiing (no proximity, no assumed responsibility, no pleaded reliance), there was no causal link between the report and her dismissal, and the claim was therefore obviously unsustainable under O.18 r.19 ROC.
28 Aug 2023

RAMESH SHANKAR A/L RAJA RAM TONG-CARRIAGE (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-25-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Industrial Court correctly found dismissal was with just cause and excuse: the applicant remained a probationer, the respondent had monitored performance and given warnings via emails and salary actions, the dismissal was a bona fide evaluation of performance, the respondent's affidavit was authorised, and the s.33C amendment did not apply to proceedings commenced before its commencement; therefore the judicial review succeeds not and is dismissed with costs.
18 Jul 2023

JAMILAH BINTI TAIB 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK)

Citation

DA-21NCvC-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On balance of probabilities the relationship was contractual and the university validly exercised clause 9 to terminate with one month pay in lieu; defendants were entitled to use the contractual termination option despite antecedent disciplinary correspondence; the plaintiff failed to prove termination unlawful and is not entitled to compensation, therefore the claim is dismissed with costs.
10 Jan 2023

Island Hospital Sdn Bhd Munyiswar a/l Munisamy

Citation

PA-25-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed Island Hospital's judicial review because the Industrial Court chairman failed to consider crucial admissions and evidence that the HR manager amended the sponsorship agreement without board approval, conduct amounting to dishonest/fiduciary breach justifying dismissal; reinstatement was refused due to strained relations; the 50% reduction in backwages was a lawful exercise of discretion given mitigation by subsequent employment; punitive damages were not warranted.