| BULLETIN 08/2015 | |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 7 of 2015) SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Exercise of administrative powers - Judicial review - Certiorari and mandamus - Application for - State Authority's decision on award of compensation - Examination of - Whether there was illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality - Whether appellant had right to resort to supervisory jurisdiction of court to examine decision - Whether there was error affecting merits - Whether State Authority took into consideration relevant factors - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 11 & 16 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3(2) Judicial review - Application for - Application for leave to quash issuance of notice to show cause under s. 31Z of Securities Commission Act 1993 - Whether issues ventilated in earlier similar applications - Whether application res judicata - Whether there was 'decision' amenable for review - Whether application premature - Whether relief sought had become academic - Whether application an abuse of process of court - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 rr. 2(4) & 3 DISMISSAL Absenteeism - Claimant taking leave without it being approved - Whether the claimant had been absent without leave from work - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether her conduct had justified her dismissal - Whether it has constituted a serious misconduct Breach of company rules and policies - Claimant storing pornographic materials on his computer - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's defence of the materials being planted - Whether supported by any evidence - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Benefits - Bonus payments - Claimant not paid his bonus - Whether it had been contractual - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Company's actions in the past - Whether it had become an implied term of his contract of employment - Whether the non-payment of the bonus had been a fundamental breach which had gone to the root of his contract of employment - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Benefits - Bonus payments - Whether it had been part of the claimant's remuneration - Perusal of the Handbook and its contents - Effect of - Whether he had been entitled to it as of right - Effect of - Company not giving any reason why bonus not paid to him - Whether it had amounted to a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract of employment - What it should have done - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant demoted pursuant to the findings of the DI - Whether it had amounted to a breach of a fundamental term of her contract of employment - Evidence adduced - Whether it had been sufficient to claim constructive dismissal - Factors to consider - Effect of Insubordination - Claimant allegedly scolding COW1 and using vulgar words against him - Whether proven by the respondent company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the respondent company had been justified in acting in the way it had - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Insubordination - Claimant failing to follow the work schedule set by the company - Whether she had failed to follow the company's instructions - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Her explanations - Whether it could be accepted - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing her - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Insubordination - Claimant refusing to follow the instructions of COW1 and COW3 - Reasons for the same - Whether she had known that she had been required to report to them - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Explanations of the claimant - Whether could be accepted - Whether the company had been right in dismissing her - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant carrying out moneylending activities - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's defence of being framed - Whether supported by any evidence - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him - Factors to consider - Whether his misconduct had been serious - Business of the company - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Threats - Whether the claimant had used abusive words, issued threats and used threatening words against her superiors - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had been subversive of discipline - Whether it had warranted her dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been disrespectful to COW4 - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Position held by COW4 in the university - Whether proven by the company - Whether it had been a serious misconduct Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been disrespectful to her immediate superior - Evidence adduced - Whether the TOR relied on by her had been an afterthought - Contents of the TOR - Conduct of the claimant - Effect of - What she should have done Misconduct - Whether the claimant had harassed and threatened Roslan - Evidence adduced - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether it had justified his dismissal Misconduct - Whether the claimant had undermined the authority of COW2, her immediate superior - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether proven by the company - What she should have done Misconduct - Whether the claimant had walked out of the meeting without approval - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether proven by the company - Whether it had constituted a serious misconduct Notice of termination - Summary dismissal - Claimant's post as Lecturer subject to him obtaining a PhD in the relevant field - Claimant failing to obtain his PhD - Whether that had entitled the university to terminate his services - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether it had amounted to a unilateral termination by the university - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether the university's actions had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal Notice of termination - Summary dismissal - Claimant terminated for failing to obtain his PhD - Whether the university had followed its own procedures - What it should have done - Whether it had taken into account the claimant's years of service and contributions with it for the past nine years - Effect of - Whether dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances DOMESTIC INQUIRY Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI conducted had been flawed - Claimant not pleading it or challenging it at the trial - Effect of - Whether a prima facie case had been established against him Procedural impropriety - Whether the rules of natural justice had been followed - Evidence adduced - Whether the claimant had been denied her fundamental rights during the DI - Factors to consider - Effect of EVIDENCE Documentary evidence - Admissibility of the e-mail printouts from the claimant's computer - Claimant failing to object to them when tendered as evidence during the trial - Whether he could object to them once admitted - Factors to consider - Evidence Act 1950, s. 90A Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Whether the deliberations had been erroneous - Factors to consider - Effect of Documentary evidence - Whether the claimant had been a workman - Factors to consider - Claimant holding the position of a remisier - How the industry had treated and considered remisiers - Whether his services had been pursuant to a contract for service - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the remedy under s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 had been available to him - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(1) Witness - Claimant giving contradictory evidence on his relationship with Roslan - Whether his evidence could be accepted - Effect of - What his contradictions had shown Witnesses - Credibility - Whether the company's evidence on events of the 10 September 2007 had been more believable - Factors to consider - Effect of - Evidence adduced - Whether the claimant had been insubordinate on that fateful day INDUSTRIAL COURT Remedies - Punishment - Claimant dismissed for insubordination - Whether his insubordination had justified his dismissal - Whether dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Whether other alternatives had been open to the respondent company - Length of service of the claimant with the company LAND LAW Right of way - Compensation - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 11 & 16 - Application for judicial review on State Authority's decision on award of compensation - Examination of - Whether there was illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality - Whether appellant had right to resort to supervisory jurisdiction of court to examine decision - Whether there was error affecting merits - Whether State Authority took into consideration relevant factors - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 11 & 16 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3(2) PUBLIC UTILITIES Electricity - Local authority - Compensation - Application for judicial review on State Authority's decision on award of compensation - Examination of - Whether there was illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality - Whether appellant had right to resort to supervisory jurisdiction of court to examine decision - Whether there was error affecting merits - Whether State Authority took into consideration relevant factors - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 11 & 16 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3(2) INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Saksi - Percanggahan keterangan oleh COW4 - Kesannya ke atas kes syarikat Saksi - Percanggahan yang material dan tidak konsisten - Keterangan COW2 mengelirukan dan meragukan - Keterangan YM mempunyai versi yang berbeza - Versi yang mana lebih cenderung kepada kebenaran - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Bidang kuasa - Pemohon merupakan sebuah syarikat yang didaftarkan di Brunei - Perjanjian perkhidmatan antara YM dan Pemohon memperuntukkan bahawa perjanjian tersebut akan dikuatkuasakan mengikut undang-undang Malaysia - Kesannya - Sama ada perjanjian tersebut menambah kuasa Mahkamah Perusahaan - Dari mana kuasa Mahkamah Perusahaan diperolehi - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 Bidang kuasa - Pemohon merupakan sebuah syarikat yang didaftarkan di Brunei - Sama ada Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 terpakai kepadanya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada Mahkamah Perusahaan mempunyai bidang kuasa luar kawasan Bidang kuasa - Sama ada YM telah memfailkan representasinya dalam tempoh masa 60 hari dari tarikh pembuangan kerjanya - Tarikh YM dibuang kerja - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada Mahkamah Perusahaan mempunyai bidang kuasa mendengar rujukan ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(1A) Prosedur - Permohonan pemohon untuk dikeluarkan daripada percantuman - Sama ada harus dibenarkan - Keterangan dan fakta yang dikemukakan - Kesannya Prosedur - Pliding - YM membangkitkan isu waiver - Isu ini tidak dibangkitkan dalam plidingnya - Sama ada harus diambil kira Remedi - Pampasan - Pampasan galang pengembalian semula ke jawatan asal - Sama ada harus diawardkan kepada YM1 - YM1 hanya berkhidmat dengan syarikat selama 10 bulan PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakhadiran - YM dituduh tidak hadir bekerja untuk dua hari berturut-turut - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Langkah-langkah yang telah diambil oleh YM untuk mendapat kebenaran - Tindakan syarikat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM diisytiharkan sebagai bankrap tetapi gagal memberitahu syarikat responden - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada salah laku YM adalah serius - Sama ada tindakan syarikat dapat dipertahankan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) dan Akta Bank dan Institusi-Institusi Kewangan 1989, s. 56 Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM diisytiharkan sebagai bankrap tetapi gagal memberitahu syarikat responden - YM hanya penjamin - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden memberhentikan perkhidmatannya adalah kejam - Tindakan yang diambil oleh syarikat responden - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM dituduh melupuskan harta syarikat - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM dituduh melupuskan harta syarikat - YM mengaku kepada pertuduhan tersebut di siasatan dalaman - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden memberhentikan perkhidmatannya adalah terlalu berat - Tiada SOP yang jelas berkenaan dengan pelupusan harta syarikat - YM tidak mendapat apa-apa keuntungan kewangan daripada salah laku tersebut - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kecuaian - Sama ada YM telah cuai apabila mengeluarkan LPU tersebut - Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan YM - Sama ada memuaskan - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden menamatkan perkhidmatannya munasabah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja tanpa alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kecuaian - YM tidak menafikan pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atasnya - Sama ada YM mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai polisi syarikat responden berkenaan pengeluaran LPU - Kesannya - YM berkhidmat dengan syarikat selama 26 tahun - Rekod perkhidmatan YM dengan syarikat responden - Sama ada harus diambil kira - Sama ada beliau mendapat keuntungan daripada tindakannya itu - Sama ada tindakan membuang kerja beliau terlalu keras - Sama ada niat YM semasa mengeluarkan LPU tersebut adalah relevan - Sama ada pembuangan kerjanya telah dilakukan tanpa alasan yang adil dan bersebab Salah laku - Salah laku berkaitan dengan moral pekerja - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada YM sedar tentang garis panduan daripada Bank Negara Malaysia dan syarikat responden - Sama ada beliau memahami kandungan dan implikasinya - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah melakukan salah laku sepertimana dituduh - Sama ada salah laku tersebut mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Salah laku - YM didakwa merokok di kawasan dilarang merokok dan sewaktu bukan masa rehat - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Penelitian keterangan - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikan kesnya terhadap YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Salah laku - YM didakwa merokok di kawasan dilarang merokok dan sewaktu bukan masa rehat - Sama ada YM telah melanggar peraturan syarikat - Penelitian peraturan syarikat - Sama ada terdapat percanggahan ketara antara Dasar dan Tatacara Tatatertib dengan Peraturan Larangan Merokok syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat terhadap YM - Sama ada mewajarkan pembuangan kerja mereka - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan berasas SIASATAN DALAMAN Ketiadaan - Sama ada merupakan suatu pelanggaran prinsip keadilan asasi - Sama ada merupakan sesuatu yang fatal kepada prosiding di mahkamah ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada dapat diperbaiki melalui prosiding de novo di Mahkamah Perusahaan |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
