Case Update: Justifying a retrenchment and departure from LIFO

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Malaysian courts recognise an employer’s right to organise his business in the way he thinks is best, provided that this right is exercised in good faith. The law gives an employer the right to decide on the number of employees his business employs based on business needs and efficiency. When it comes to retrenchments, the courts will be slow to intervene with an employer’s decision to retrench employees, unless there is evidence that the employer acted without proper reason, or otherwise acted in bad faith.

Employees who have been retrenched commonly challenge the legality of the termination on two points: (1) There was no genuine redundancy or other reason to carry out a retrenchment exercise. (2) Where there was a genuine need for a retrenchment, the selection criteria used by the employer in deciding which employees to dismiss was unfair.

Therefore, even though employers generally have the right to decide on their workforce numbers, any decision to retrench employees must be carefully considered and implemented. The recent Industrial Court award in Wong CP & 3 Others v. Taylor’s University Sdn Bhd (Award No. 342 of 2022) is worth considering as a reminder of the issues the Industrial Court will take into consideration where employees challenge the fairness of a retrenchment.

Continue reading

Case Update: Singapore Court Grants Persons Unknown Injunction to Freeze Cryptocurrency

The Singapore High Court case in CLM v CLN and others [2022] SGHC 46 is the first reported Singapore decision on the grant of an injunction against persons unknown to freeze cryptocurrency.

The court granted the injunction over the stolen cryptocurrency of approximately 109 bitcoins (BTC) (approximately more than RM17 million in value based on current price of 1 BTC to ~RM160,000) and 1,497 ether (ETH) tokens (approximately more than RM16 million in value based on current 1 ETH to ~RM11,000). Continue reading

Webinar on Practicalities of Enforcement of Crypto-Assets

 

On Tuesday 12 April 2022, from 2.30pm to 4pm, I will be speaking on a panel discussion organised by the Law Society of Singapore. We will cover the Practicalities of Enforcement of Crypto-assets.

This is open to non-members of the Law Society of Singapore as well. The registration page is here and with the publicity brochure.
Continue reading

Case Update: High Court Grants Anti-Arbitration Injunction After Finding No Arbitration Agreement Existed

June Ong writes this update on the Malaysian High Court decision applying the “full merits” test in determining the existence of an arbitration agreement.

 

The High Court in Lysaght Corrugated Pipe Sdn Bhd and Anor v Popeye Resources Sdn Bhd and Anor (Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No.: WA-22NCC-109-03/2021) (grounds of judgment dated 10 February 2022) set out the requirements for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005. This is in particular when evaluating the existence of an arbitration agreement. Further, in dismissing the stay, the Court granted an anti-arbitration injunction to restrain a Hong Kong arbitration.

Continue reading

Case Update: Restraining Order Requires Scheme With More than 50% of All Debts

The High Court in Asiabio Capital Sdn Bhd v Seacera Group Bhd [2021] MLJU 2598 (grounds of judgment dated 3 November 2021) has emphasised the mandatory pre-conditions for the grant of a restraining order in a scheme of arrangement.

This short decision touches on the importance of showing that the proposed scheme of arrangement must involve more than half of the total debts of the debtor company.

Continue reading

Case Update: Court of Appeal Decides Minister Can Grant Extension of Time for Vacant Possession

Guest writer, Annabel Tan, shares with us the Court of Appeal decision in the Bluedream case dealing with whether the Minister can extend time or not.

 

The Court of Appeal in Bluedream City Development Sdn Bhd v Kong Thye & 184 others and 5 other appeals (grounds of judgment dated 24 January 2022) decided that the Minister has the power to grant an extension of time to a housing developer to deliver vacant possession. The Court of Appeal distinguished an earlier Federal Court decision.

Continue reading