Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们