Case Update: When there are competing nominees to be appointed liquidator

The High Court in its Grounds of Judgment dated 20 June 2018 in Abdul Rahman bin Ismail v Pembangunan Qualicare Sdn Bhd (Penang High Court Winding Up Petition No. 28-6-01/2013) made an interesting observation when there are competing nominees to be appointed as liquidator in a court winding up.

The High Court raised the possibility of a need for a mini trial in order to test the suitability of the two competing liquidator nominees. Continue reading

Case Update: A Shareholder Derivative Action Can Be Brought for Benefit of a Deadlocked Company

The Federal Court in Perak Integrated Networks Services Sdn Bhd v Urban Domain Sdn Bhd & Ors (see the Federal Court Grounds of Judgment dated 16 April 2018) has ruled on the issue of  whether a common law derivative action can be initiated where the company is in a 50:50 deadlock.

The question of law before the Federal Court was:

Whether a derivative action may in law be brought for the benefit of a company, the management and control of which are deadlocked.

 

The Federal Court answered the question in the affirmative. The Federal Court has also set out the definitive test on wrongdoer control for the purposes of a common law derivative action. The possibility of initiating a just and equitable winding up petition based on the deadlock does not in itself prevent a shareholder from bringing a derivative action. Continue reading

Case Update: Is a clause in an employee handbook effective if an employee claims not to have read it?

Case Updates - red

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.

Identifying the terms and conditions that apply to an employment relationship is often not as straightforward as reading through an employment contract.

It is the norm, particularly in large employer organisations which span multiple jurisdictions, for these terms and conditions to be set out in several documents. As a minimum, many employers would have an offer letter, the main employment contract, and an employee handbook. These are then supplemented by further individual policies, such as those in relation to personal data, BYOD, IT, benefits, discipline, workplace conduct, grievance procedures — the list is close to endless. The difficulty in determining which terms apply is further complicated when these documents (or parts of some of these documents) are amended or updated over the years.

Problems arise when an employer seeks to apply or enforce some of the terms set out in one of those documents, and the employee claims to not be aware of it — or contends that the document does not apply. The Industrial Court recently considered one such case in Ho Seng Fatt v. Strateq System Sdn Bhd (Award No. 279 of 2018).

Continue reading

Case Update: Factors considered by the Industrial Court in determining the identity of the employer in a multi-jurisdictional employment relationship

Case Updates (FB)

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.

In this era of the multinational corporation, it is common for employees to be carrying out most (or even all) of their work in one jurisdiction, while technically being employed by an employer entity in another jurisdiction. This could either be because the employer does not have a local entity, or because the employee was initially employed by an entity in one jurisdiction but was subsequently assigned to a post in another jurisdiction, or for a host of other commercial reasons.

We therefore see increasingly complicated employment relationships — the core employment contract being supplemented by assignments, secondments, or some other similar arrangements both formal or otherwise — which in time can lead to confusion over who the actual employer entity is, and more importantly, which jurisdiction the employer is in. Some of these arrangements can get even more convoluted with the introduction of other structures such as third party employment or payroll service providers or local host entities.

Identifying the correct employer entity becomes important when an employee seeks recourse at the Industrial Court. It is not as straightforward as determining which entity pays the employee’s salary, or owns the office the employee spends most of his time in. Once it is determined that the employer entity is in another jurisdiction, can the Industrial Court hear the matter?

The relevant factors were recently considered by the Industrial Court in two cases — Lars Kruse Thomsen v. Hot-Can Sdn Bhd (Award No. 1629 of 2017), and John Brian Chesson v. Baker Hughes (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Award No. 119 of 2018).

Continue reading

Case Update: What can an employer do upon discovering that an employee lied in a job application?

Case Updates - yellow

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.

The hiring process can often be tricky for employers. In the Malaysian job market, it is common for employers to receive hundreds of applications for certain vacancies. Employers then have to comb through these applications, shortlist candidates to be interviewed, and make a hiring decision based on fairly limited information.

To reduce the time spent on this process, many employers do not conduct thorough background checks on job applicants. The experience and employment history stated in the applications are often assumed to be accurate, with some allowance given for an expected reasonable degree of exaggeration.

What is the recourse for an employer who, soon after hiring an individual, realises that the employee had lied in his job application? Does this false information constitute just cause for an employment termination, or will the dismissal enable the employee to bring a successful unfair dismissal claim?

The Industrial Court considered these issues in two recent awards — Khoo Kim Loang v. Shock Media Studio Sdn Bhd (Award No. 51 of 2018) on 4 January 2018, and Khoo Kim Loang v. Kim Siah Electric Co Sdn Bhd (Award No. 137 of 2018) on 12 January 2018 — interestingly both involving the same Employee.

Continue reading