EMPLOYMENT LAW – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL

Lim joined this company and started with a six months probation. The company later issued him a letter extending his probation for another five months. In the employment contract, it was written that the company would not tolerate any conduct that is likely to damage or destroy the relationship and trust between the employees and the company.

During his probation, he was humiliated in the group chat and was threatened to be sacked by the Head of the Department on several occasions. There were audio recordings provided by Lim to show that the superior taunted and berated him for failing to obtain the superior’s permission before submitting the stock order.

Recently, he has not been receiving his full salary and other allowances agreed under the employment contract. He left the company. He is now claiming that he was constructively dismissed without a just excuse.

Q: What is constructive dismissal?

A: The employee is left with no choice but to resign from the company due to the employer’s actions that has breached the basic terms of the employment contract. The employee needs to prove that there is a breach (in this case, Lim). The breach must be substantial.

Q: What needs to be proved to establish constructive dismissal?

A: To prove that there is constructive dismissal, Lim needs to prove that:

  • There is breach of basic terms of the employment contract.
  • The employee left due to the breach and not for any other reasons.
  • There is no delay.

Each case will be decided based on its own facts.

Q: In this case, is there constructive dismissal?

A: There is constructive dismissal as there is a fundamental breach of the employment contract. He was not paid the full salary and other allowances agreed. He had left the company due to the humiliation and verbal attack by his Head of Department.

Recent Post

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS – LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN UNREGISTERED CUSTOMARY MARRIAGES TO INHERIT INTESTATE ESTATES

Born to parents in an unregistered Chinese customary marriage, an individual was deemed illegitimate following their father’s intestate death. The key legal issue is whether this individual can inherit under the Distribution Act 1958 (DA). The DA does not restrict inheritance to legitimate children only; it includes all bloodline descendants. Therefore, the individual qualifies as ‘issue’ and is entitled to inherit their father’s estate despite questions of legitimacy.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ADULTERY WITHOUT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

A husband filed for divorce due to living apart from his wife for two years, while the wife attributed the breakdown to adultery, involving the alleged adulteress without seeking damages. This raises questions about the necessity of addressing adultery in divorce when no compensation is sought, as Section 54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 emphasizes irretrievable breakdown without fault.

Read More »

ROAD TRAFFIC – DUTY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ROAD TRANSPORT

In a legal spotlight, X’s acquisition of a cloned vehicle unknowingly, due to lapses in the Road Transport Department’s record-keeping, raises questions about statutory duties and public trust. The case underscores the importance of stringent vehicle registry maintenance to prevent ownership of unlawfully modified vehicles.

Read More »

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?