SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Dismissal from service - Dismissal of Bank Negara Malaysia temporary worker - Worker subject to BNM contract of employment - Whether worker a public officer - Whether protection and benefits under Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980 applicable - Federal Constitution, art. 132
Subramanyah AJ Karuppiah v. Bank Negara Malaysia
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Ramly Ali JCA & T Selventhiranathan JCA) [2011] 1 ILR 490  

Judicial review - Statutory body - Decision of Minister not to refer representation on dismissal to Industrial Court for adjudication - Whether decision justified in view of reinstatement offer made - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sunny Khoo v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Anor
(Aziah Ali J) [2011] 1 ILR 507  

Public servants - Dismissal of Bank Negara Malaysia temporary worker - Worker subject to BNM contract of employment - Whether worker a public officer - Whether protection and benefits under Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980 - Federal Constitution, art. 132
Subramanyah AJ Karuppiah v. Bank Negara Malaysia
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Ramly Ali JCA & T Selventhiranathan JCA) [2011] 1 ILR 490  

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Appeal - New points, introduction of - In what circumstances may such points be raised - Raising of new point would result in allowing new line of defence or plea without hearing fresh evidence - Prejudicial to opponent - New point not allowed
Subramanyah AJ Karuppiah v. Bank Negara Malaysia
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Ramly Ali JCA & T Selventhiranathan JCA) [2011] 1 ILR 490  

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Public servants - Dismissal of Bank Negara Malaysia temporary worker - Worker subject to BNM contract of employment - Whether worker a public officer - Whether protection and benefits under Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980 applicable to worker - Federal Constitution, art. 132
Subramanyah AJ Karuppiah v. Bank Negara Malaysia
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Ramly Ali JCA & T Selventhiranathan JCA) [2011] 1 ILR 490  

DISMISSAL

Attendance - Lateness - Claimant habitually late - Whether the company had warned her of it - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Company not taking any action until almost a year later - Whether the company had condoned the claimant’s habitual lateness - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ng Sock Leng v. Eng Huat Stationers Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2011] 1 ILR 520  

Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant’s defence - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Effect of - Claimant’s position in the respondent company - Whether his behaviour had been unbecoming of his position in the respondent company - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had been right in dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Hasbullah Abd Jalil v. KUB Power Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 1 ILR 629  

Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant failing to adhere to the respondent’s management guide - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether proven - Effect of - Claimant dismissed from service - Claimant alleging that the company’s decision to terminate him had been unjust - Whether proven by the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Hasbullah Abd Jalil v. KUB Power Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 1 ILR 629  

Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Claimants suspected of theft - Claimants charged with theft in the Magistrates Court - Whether the proceedings in the Magistrate Court and the Industrial Court had been independent of one another - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the misconduct against the claimants - Whether a suspicion of a commission of a misconduct had been sufficient - Effect of - Whether the company had been right in dismissing the claimants - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zamri Raee & Anor v. Samling Plywood Miri Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 1 ILR 659  

Constructive dismissal - Re-designation of the claimant’s job - Job functions of the claimant in her new designation - Whether it had been a demotion - Claimant’s salary and terms and conditions of employment remaining the same - Perusal of - Effect of - Claimant not consulted - Effect of - Company’s prerogative to re-designate - Whether it had been done bona fide - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Effect of - Claimant no longer having subordinates reporting to her - Effect of - Whether the company by its conduct had evinced an intention to no longer be bound by the contract of employment - Effect of - Whether the claimant had successfully proven constructive dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Su Sook Hwee v. The Summit Hotel (Wholly Owned By Meda Development Sdn Bhd)
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2011] 1 ILR 615  

Constructive dismissal - Re-designation of the claimant’s job - Reasons put forward by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether their reasons had been made out - Effect of - Company’s conduct towards the claimant - Whether the company had shown an intention to no longer be bound by the claimant’s contract of employment - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Su Sook Hwee v. The Summit Hotel (Wholly Owned By Meda Development Sdn Bhd)
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2011] 1 ILR 615  

Constructive dismissal - Salary - Claimant charged with misconduct and subsequently dismissed from service - Claimant claiming constructive dismissal before receiving termination letter - Effect of - Whether it had amounted to a breach which had gone to the root of the contract - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
AIRASIA Sdn Bhd (Now Known As AirAsia Berhad) v. Zakaria Ahmad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2011] 1 ILR 704  

Constructive dismissal - Salary - Company suspending the claimant on charges of misconduct and failing to pay his salary - Claimant walking out on constructive dismissal - Whether the company’s actions had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether there had been a fundamental breach of the terms of employment by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
AIRASIA Sdn Bhd (Now Known As AirAsia Berhad) v. Zakaria Ahmad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2011] 1 ILR 704  

Insubordination - Claimants instigating and inciting company workers to picket - Claimants told to desist by the police and their superiors - Claimants disregarding instructions - Effect of - Whether their behaviour had been willful - Whether their disobedience to their superiors instructions had evinced an intention to no longer be bound by their contract of employment - Evidence adduced by the claimants and the company - Whether the misconducts had been proven against the claimants - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Gandour (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Moses Joseph & Anor
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2011] 1 ILR 674  

Insubordination - Claimants raising their voices and being disrespectful to their superiors - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconducts against the claimants - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether sufficient to satisfy its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Gandour (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Moses Joseph & Anor
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2011] 1 ILR 674  

Misconduct - Circulation of pornographic e-mail to some company staff and third parties - Contents of the e-mail - Whether it had tarnished the image of the company in the face of third parties - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had been sufficient to prove the claimants misconduct against the company - Effect of - Whether the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties had been destroyed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Low Tiam Seng v. Panasonic Electronics Devices (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2011] 1 ILR 567  

Misconduct - Circulation of pornographic e-mail to some company staff and third parties - Defences put forward by the claimant - Whether it had amounted to a technical defence - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been able to substantiate his defences with the necessary proof - Effect of - Whether the claimant had committed the misconduct - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Low Tiam Seng v. Panasonic Electronics Devices (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2011] 1 ILR 567  

Misconduct - Claimant conducting personal business during office hours - What the claimant’s working hours had been - Perusal of the claimant’s contract of employment - Whether her break times had been stipulated - Effect of - Position held by the claimant in the company - Claimant being reprimanded by COW1 - How the claimant had reacted to it - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sandra Choy Yin Li v. Cari Internet Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 1 ILR 539  

Misconduct - Claimant sending and receiving personal e-mails during office hours - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of -Whether the e-mail had been sent during office hours - Whether there had been any way to show that it had been sent during office hours - Claimant using the company’s laptop - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Whether COW1’s evidence could be considered expert evidence on the matter - Qualifications of COW1 - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sandra Choy Yin Li v. Cari Internet Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 1 ILR 539  

Misconduct - Claimant using the company handphone for personal matters - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sandra Choy Yin Li v. Cari Internet Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 1 ILR 539  

Misconduct - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Claimant lodging a complaint with the IRD - Company offering to pay the claimant 3 months’ salary in return for her withdrawing her complaint with the IRD - 2 months’ salary paid in good faith by the company - Whether that had estopped the claimant from pursuing her claim in the Industrial Court - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sandra Choy Yin Li v. Cari Internet Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 1 ILR 539  

Performance - Company alleging that claimant not performing - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been given any warnings or counselling - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Claimant given a confirmation letter - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the claimant’s non performance - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ng Sock Leng v. Eng Huat Stationers Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2011] 1 ILR 520  

Probationer - Claimant put on probation for 3 months - Claimant given a confirmation letter but failing to accept - Effect of - Contents of the confirmation letter - What the company’s intentions had been - Company’s treatment of the claimant during her tenure of service - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been a probationer at the point in time of her dismissal - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ng Sock Leng v. Eng Huat Stationers Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2011] 1 ILR 520  

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimants retrenched from the company - Whether the company had given the claimants advance warning - Whether the company had been under an obligation to inform the claimants - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions were bona fide - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed in the company - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Alam Arena Management Sdn Bhd v. Norfadzilah Surip & Anor
(Soo Ai Lin) [2011] 1 ILR 590  

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the LIFO principles had been followed - What factors needed to be considered before undertaking a retrenchment exercise - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Actions taken by the company - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions had shown a mala fide intent - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Alam Arena Management Sdn Bhd v. Norfadzilah Surip & Anor
(Soo Ai Lin) [2011] 1 ILR 590  

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Company’s audited accounts showing an accumulated loss carried forward - Effect of - Company reorganizing and restructuring its business - Whether the company had undertaken cost cutting measures - The measures taken - Whether those measures had been acceptable - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions had been a cloak to victimize the claimants’ - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Alam Arena Management Sdn Bhd v. Norfadzilah Surip & Anor
(Soo Ai Lin) [2011] 1 ILR 590  

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Charges - Whether the charges against the claimant had been reasonably sufficient to enable him to answer them - Details of the charge - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Low Tiam Seng v. Panasonic Electronics Devices (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2011] 1 ILR 567  

Findings - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the findings of the DI had been proper - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Gandour (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Moses Joseph & Anor
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2011] 1 ILR 674  

Procedural impropriety - Claimants refusing to participate in the DI - Reasons for the same - Effect of - Whether their actions had been correct - Effect of
Zamri Raee & Anor v. Samling Plywood Miri Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 1 ILR 659  

Procedural impropriety - Whether there had been any bias in the formation of the panel - Who the members of the panel had consisted of - Effect of - Whether it had complied with the rule against bias - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Low Tiam Seng v. Panasonic Electronics Devices (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2011] 1 ILR 567  

EMPLOYMENT

Contract of service - Termination of services - Dismissal of Bank Negara Malaysia temporary worker - Worker subject to BNM contract of employment - Right to mitigate before punishment - Whether worker afforded chance to make representation - Whether rules of natural justice could be invoked - Whether termination justified - Whether worker entitled to relief of reinstatement
Subramanyah AJ Karuppiah v. Bank Negara Malaysia
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Ramly Ali JCA & T Selventhiranathan JCA) [2011] 1 ILR 490  

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence - Computer generated documents - Whether admissible - Effect of - Evidence Act 1950, s. 90A
Sandra Choy Yin Li v. Cari Internet Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 1 ILR 539  

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Claimants not participating - Whether the findings had been perverse - Factors to consider - Effect of
Zamri Raee & Anor v. Samling Plywood Miri Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 1 ILR 659  

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Whether it had been accurate - Claimant not challenging - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Hasbullah Abd Jalil v. KUB Power Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 1 ILR 629  

Documentary evidence - Findings of the Domestic Inquiry - Whether the findings had been accurate - Claimant challenging its accuracy - Effect of - Whether there had been any basis for the claimant’s contentions - Claimant failing to provide comparative notes - Effect of - What that meant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Low Tiam Seng v. Panasonic Electronics Devices (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2011] 1 ILR 567  

Witnesses - Company witnesses giving oral evidence - Whether the oral evidence had been corroborated satisfactorily - Whether the company’s oral evidence had been corroborated by documentary evidence - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ng Sock Leng v. Eng Huat Stationers Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2011] 1 ILR 520  

Witnesses - Credibility - Testimony of the company witnesses - Whether had any probative value - Factors to consider - Effect of
Zamri Raee & Anor v. Samling Plywood Miri Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 1 ILR 659  

Witness - What kind of witness the claimant had been - Perusal of the claimant’s testimony at the trial - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been an evasive witness - Type of testimony given by the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Low Tiam Seng v. Panasonic Electronics Devices (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2011] 1 ILR 567  

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Jurisdiction - Whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter - Whether the claimant’s representations to the DGIR had been made within the 60 day period as stipulated under the IRA - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1A)
Svella Kumar Suppiah v. Lafarge Cement Malaysia (Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd)
(Tay Lee Ly) [2011] 1 ILR 604  

Jurisdiction - Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Whether the respondent company had been a non-existent entity - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether APMC had represented itself as being the claimant’s employer - Evidence tendered by the parties - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1) & 20(3)
Svella Kumar Suppiah v. Lafarge Cement Malaysia (Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd)
(Tay Lee Ly) [2011] 1 ILR 604  

Procedure - Action - Summons issued pursuant to s. 29(a) and (b) of the Act - Whether it had been a fishing expedition - Effect of - Application to set it aside - Factors to consider - Whether the summons had been an abuse of process - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(a) & (b)
David Vanniasingham Ramanathan v. Subang Jaya Medical Centre Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2011] 1 ILR 652  

Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Complainant failing to join the employer as a party to the ministerial reference or the non-compliance proceedings - Effect of - Whether the award bound a non party to the ministerial reference or the non-compliance proceedings - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 32(1)(a)
Yen Chee Yung v. Matrix Valley Holding Sdn Bhd
(Ong Geok Lan) [2011] 1 ILR 512  

Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Whether both limbs of the test in Hotchtief’s case had been satisfied - Effect of - Dormant company - Effect of - Whether joinder necessary to make adjudication enforceable and effective - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(a)
Zainal Abidin Zakaria v. Arus Dimensi Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 1 ILR 698  

Remedies - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Whether suitable to grant - Claimants were daily paid workers - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zamri Raee & Anor v. Samling Plywood Miri Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 1 ILR 659  

Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether it had been appropriate to grant under the circumstances - Lapse of 5 years since the claimant had been dismissed - Effect of - Factors to consider
Su Sook Hwee v. The Summit Hotel (Wholly Owned By Meda Development Sdn Bhd)
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2011] 1 ILR 615  

LABOUR LAW

Employment - Dismissal, representation on - Decision of Minister not to refer representation to Industrial Court - Whether decision justified in view of reinstatement offer made - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sunny Khoo v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Anor
(Aziah Ali J) [2011] 1 ILR 507  

Employment - Termination - Validity - Dismissal of Bank Negara Malaysia temporary worker - Whether plaintiff a public officer - Whether fair hearing accorded before termination - Whether employment relationship governed by contract between parties
Subramanyah AJ Karuppiah v. Bank Negara Malaysia
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Ramly Ali JCA & T Selventhiranathan JCA) [2011] 1 ILR 490  

Industrial Court - Award of dismissal - Judicial review - Industrial Court found domestic inquiry process flawed but ruling that dismissal was justified - Whether decision sustainable - Whether had properly applied law to facts of case - Whether applicant truly guilty of gross misconduct
Rachel Mathews v. BASF (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof J) [2011] 1 ILR 485  

NON-COMPLIANCE

Award - Award made in respect of the respondent who had not been the employer of the complainant - Effect of - Whether the respondent could be ordered to do something it had no power or authority to do - Effect of - What should have been done in the circumstances - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 32(1)(a) & 56(1)
Yen Chee Yung v. Matrix Valley Holding Sdn Bhd
(Ong Geok Lan) [2011] 1 ILR 512  

Award - Respondent not the employer of the complainant - Effect of - Who had been the complainant’s employer - Whether the complainant’s employer had been a party to the ministerial reference - Whether the award bound the complainant’s employer - Effect of - What should have been done in the circumstances - Courses of action open to the complainant - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 32(1)(a) & 56(1)
Yen Chee Yung v. Matrix Valley Holding Sdn Bhd
(Ong Geok Lan) [2011] 1 ILR 512  

Collective Agreement - Parties to the collective agreement not made a party to this proceeding - Effect of - Whether the application had been flawed - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56
National Union Of Bank Employees v. EON Bank Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 1 ILR 560  

PUBLIC SERVANTS

Dismissal - Dismissal of Bank Negara Malaysia temporary worker - Worker subject to BNM contract of employment - Whether worker a public officer - Whether protection and benefits under Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980 applicable to worker - Federal Constitution, art. 132
Subramanyah AJ Karuppiah v. Bank Negara Malaysia
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Ramly Ali JCA & T Selventhiranathan JCA) [2011] 1 ILR 490  

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Saksi - Sama ada saksi-saksi syarikat dapat dipercayai - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Jeyasingam Nadarajah lwn. Mutiara Johor Bahru
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 1 ILR 721  

KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN

Keesahannya - Kontrak 3 - Sama ada merupakan kontrak yang mengikat antara pihak-pihak - Bukti yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada Kontrak 3 tersebut adalah sah - Faktor-faktor yang harus dipertimbangkan - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Jeyasingam Nadarajah lwn. Mutiara Johor Bahru
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 1 ILR 721  

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN

Prosidur - Parti - Percantuman - Kuasa Mahkamah untuk membenarkan percantuman - Prinsip-prinsip yang digunakan - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 29(a) & Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 Kaedah 15 Aturan 6
Razman Ab Razak & Yang Lain Lwn. Malaysia Marine & Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2011] 1 ILR 642  

Prosidur - Parti - Percantuman - Sama ada terdapat hubung kait antara YM dan parti-parti berkenaan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada percantuman adalah perlu untuk menjadikan keputusan mahkamah berkesan dan dapat dilaksanakan - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 29(a)
Razman Ab Razak & Yang Lain lwn. Malaysia Marine & Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2011] 1 ILR 642