|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 12 of 2017)
SUBJECT INDEX
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Exercise of administrative powers - Retirement - Applicant applied for optional early retirement from statutory body - Application and appeals rejected without reasons - Whether applicant entitled and fulfilled requirements to optionally retire from statutory body - Whether rejection of applicant's application and appeals done in bad faith - Whether statutory body had duty to give reasons for rejecting application and appeals - Statutory and Local Authorities Pensions Act 1980, s. 12(1)
Mohamad Hassan Zakaria v. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Badariah Sahamid & Mary Lim JJCA) [2017] 4 ILR 430
Judicial review - Grounds for - Offences under University of Malaya (Discipline of Students) Rules 1999 ('UM Rules') - Applicants found guilty and sentenced by disciplinary committee of University Malaya - Whether decision-making and sentencing of applicants in compliance with UM Rules - Whether procedure adopted tainted with procedural impropriety - Whether in breach of rules of natural justice
Fahmi Zainol & Ors v. Jawatankuasa Tatatertib Pelajar, Universiti Malaya & Ors
(Mohd Yazid Mustafa J) [2017] 4 ILR 417
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Applicant applied for optional early retirement from statutory body - Application and appeals rejected without reasons - Whether rejection of applicant's application and appeal done in bad faith - Whether statutory body's decision ought to be quashed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53
Mohamad Hassan Zakaria v. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Badariah Sahamid & Mary Lim JJCA) [2017] 4 ILR 430
Judicial review - Mandamus - Application for - Applicant applied for optional early retirement from statutory body - Application and appeals rejected without reasons being given - Whether rejection of applicant's application and appeal done in bad faith - Whether court could compel statutory body to consent to applicant's application to retire early - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53
Mohamad Hassan Zakaria v. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Badariah Sahamid & Mary Lim JJCA) [2017] 4 ILR 430
DISMISSAL
Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant found guilty of misconduct and demoted - Whether he had been victimised by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Company's actions towards him - Whether reasonable - Whether it had justified him walking out of his employment and claiming constructive dismissal
Elngovan Subramaniam v. Ceramtec Innovative Ceramic Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2017] 4 ILR 602
Misconduct - Whether the claimant had failed to personally supervise the daily bubble test despite him signing off on the checklist - Whether he had signed the checklist without physically being present during the test - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been proven against him - Claimant's defence - Whether acceptable - Company demoting him - Whether the company's actions towards him had been reasonable and justified - Whether it had been a fundamental breach which had gone to the root of his contract of employment which had justified him claiming constructive dismissal
Elngovan Subramaniam v. Ceramtec Innovative Ceramic Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2017] 4 ILR 602
Notice of termination - Claimants terminated and appealing to the company to be allowed to resign - Whether their appeal to resign had superseded their termination letters - Whether their claim for unjust dismissal ought to be heard
A Sanmugam Annamalah & Anor v. Limkokwing University / Limkokwing University Of Creative Technology
(Duncan Sikodol) [2017] 4 ILR 562
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Procedural impropriety - Chairman and one panel member of the DI not employees of the company - Whether the DI conducted had been against the principles of natural justice - Factors to consider - Effect of
Elngovan Subramaniam v. Ceramtec Innovative Ceramic Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2017] 4 ILR 602
Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI had been defective - Whether there had been any serious substantive and procedural defect whilst conducting it - Factors to consider - Effect of
Chan Yin Ching v. Buildcon Concrete Sdn Bhd
(Jamil Aripin) [2017] 4 ILR 574
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence - Notes of the DI - Whether accurate - Factors to consider - Effect of
Chan Yin Ching v. Buildcon Concrete Sdn Bhd
(Jamil Aripin) [2017] 4 ILR 574
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Jurisdiction - Whether the IC had the jurisdiction to hear this matter - Factors to consider - Whether the claimants had abandoned their claim for reinstatement - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Where the Industrial Court derives its jurisdiction from - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
A Sanmugam Annamalah & Anor v. Limkokwing University / Limkokwing University Of Creative Technology
(Duncan Sikodol) [2017] 4 ILR 562
Jurisdiction - Whether the IC had the jurisdiction to vary its own order made under s. 56(2) of the Act - Factors to consider - Effect of - What the union should have done - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 33B(1), 56(1), 56(2), 56(2)(a)(i), (b) and (c) & 56(4)
Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia v. Royal Selangor Golf Club
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 4 ILR 515
Pleadings - Contents of the claimant's Statement of Case - Whether she had successfully proven them - Factors to consider - Effect of - What she should have done - Her defence - Whether it had contained bare denials unsupported by the evidence
Chan Yin Ching v. Buildcon Concrete Sdn Bhd
(Jamil Aripin) [2017] 4 ILR 574
Pleadings - The evidence of the company's witnesses on the charges not challenged by the claimant - Whether accepted by her - Whether the charges had been proven by the company against her - Claimant raising the defence of condonation - Whether it had applied in this case - Company's actions towards her - What it had shown - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
Chan Yin Ching v. Buildcon Concrete Sdn Bhd
(Jamil Aripin) [2017] 4 ILR 574
Procedure - Action - Application for claimant's representative to stop representing the claimant - Whether should be allowed - Factors to consider - Effect of
Miza Husni Thamrin v. Sarawak Plantation Agriculture Development Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2017] 4 ILR 460
Punishment - Whether dismissal too harsh under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether, when taken cumulatively, it had shown a pattern of continued and persistent misconduct, capable of destroying the reputation of the company and adversely affecting its business
Chan Yin Ching v. Buildcon Concrete Sdn Bhd
(Jamil Aripin) [2017] 4 ILR 574
NON-COMPLIANCE
Award - Said Award entered into between the parties by consent - Complainant seeking to enforce the said Award against the Liquidators of the company - Whether his application ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether any priority payment to the complainant had been limited to RM1,500 - Companies Act 1965, s. 292(1)(b) & Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, r. 92
Sheikh Mohamad Moqhtar Abdul Kadir v. WMM Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 4 ILR 470
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Article on annual increment and salary adjustment - Company having an appraisal system in place since commencing operations - Whether it had been a fair system - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it should be disturbed
Kesatuan Eksekutif Canon Opto (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Canon Opto (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2017] 4 ILR 477
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Article on bonus - Whether the union's proposal of three months as bonus had been excessive and unsupported by the evidence - Factors to consider - Effect of - Company practising an existing bonus payment system - Whether it had worked - Evidence adduced - Whether there had been any reason to disturb it - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 30(4) & 30(5)
Kesatuan Eksekutif Canon Opto (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Canon Opto (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2017] 4 ILR 477
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Article on duration, modification and renewal of the contract - Parties agreeing on a date to backdate the CA to - Whether the date agreed on had been in contravention of s. 30(7) of the IRA 1967 - Factors to consider - Whether s. 30(7) of the IRA had been a mandatory provision - Effect of - When the CA should be backdated to - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(7)
Kesatuan Eksekutif Canon Opto (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Canon Opto (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2017] 4 ILR 477
INDEKS PERKARA
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN
Prosedur - Tindakan - Penggantungan prosiding sementara menunggu keputusan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan - Sama ada isu di Mahkamah Rayuan melibatkan isu yang sama di Mahkamah Perusahaan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada permohonan ini harus dibenarkan
Soh Chee Gee lwn. Syn Tai Hung Trading Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman)[2017] 4 ILR 466
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Salah laku - Sama ada YM telah memfitnah pihak pengurusan dan syarikat melalui kenyataannya sepertimana disiarkan di dalam artikel di laman web Malaysiakini dan HarakahDaily masing-masing - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Pembelaan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat terhadapnya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut merupakan salah laku yang serius - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Amran Ahmad lwn. Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2017] 4 ILR 546
Salah laku - Sama ada YM telah meminta balasan berbentuk seksual dan rasuah daripada COW1 - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Penilaian keterangan - Kesannya - Pembelaan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan terhadap YM telah dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM di syarikat responden - Tanggungjawabnya kepada syarikat responden - Sama ada tindakan YM telah mencemarkan nama baik syarikat responden - Sama ada salah laku YM merupakan salah laku yang serius - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Saravanan Muthiah lwn. Kolej Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
(Rasidah Chik) [2017] 4 ILR 524
|