Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Our Reported Cases
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 10 of 2025

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 10 of 2025
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 10 of 2025

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 29 May, 2025 | 0

    “Did the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to hear a wrongful dismissal claim when a Mutual Separation Agreement had been signed?”

    CASE:

    Fatimah Noordin v. Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 3 MLRA

    BRIEF FACTS:

    • Fatimah Noordin was employed as a Section Manager in the Human Resources Department of Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd [Carsem].

    • On 20th April 2017, immediately after returning from two weeks of annual leave, Fatimah was handed a Mutual Separation Agreement (“MSA”).

    • She was asked to sign it on the spot, with her last working day stated on the agreement as 21st April 2017.

    • After signing it, she was told to leave the premises the same day.

    • The MSA included a compensation payment of RM 50,000.00 which was never paid.

    • Subsequently Carsem alleged that Fatimah had committed fraud in relation to the recruitment of foreign workers. The information pertaining to the alleged fraud only surfaced after the execution of the MSA.

    • Fatimah then lodged a complaint with the Industrial Relations Department who then referred the complaint to the Industrial Courts (“IC”). Fatimah claims she had been dismissed without just cause or excuse.

    • Carsem argued that the IC had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the MSA was voluntarily signed.

    • Carsem had also filed a civil suit against Fatima alleging fraud as well as breach of contract in relation to the allegation of fraud with regards the recruitment of foreign workers.

    • Fatimah counterclaimed asserting that the MSA was obtained under duress.

    • At the Sessions Court Carsem’s claim for damages for fraud were allowed. And Fatimah’s counter claim was dismissed.

    • Fatimah has appealed the decision of the Sessions Court to the High Court which was still pending when this case was heard.

    • At the Sessions Court, a Senior HR Personnel of Carsem had admitted that the reason why the MSA was offered to Fatimah was due to her poor performance.

    • And she also confirmed that Carsem was very unhappy with Fatimah and wanted her to leave immediately.

    DECISION BY THE INDUSTRIAL COURT (IC)

    • The IC dismissed Fatimah’s claim for wrongful dismissal and held that she had voluntarily signed the MSA.

    • The IC found no evidence of coercion, duress, or protest from her.

    • Fatimah being dissatisfied challenged the decision at the High Court (HC).

    DECISION BY THE HIGH COURT (HC)

    • The HC upheld the Industrial Court’s conclusion that Fatimah had signed the MSA voluntarily.

    • The Court relied on her senior position and experience in HR, and noted the absence of any immediate objection or protest after the agreement was signed.

    • The HC also found no evidence of coercion or duress and dismissed her judicial review application.

    • Fatimah being dissatisfied appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    • But at the Court of Appeal Fatimah wanted to bring in the evidence of the Senior HR Personnel of Carsem which was given at the Sessions Court.

    • Fatimah wanted to adduce the evidence to show that she signed the MSA under duress.

    DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL (COA)

    • The COA allowed Fatimah’s appeal and set aside the IC’s award.

    • The Court also allowed the admission of the evidence of the Senior HR Personnel.

    • Puan Nur’s testimony was important in that it showed that the MSA was not a product of a genuine negotiation, instead was a part of a premeditated plan to remove Fatimah from her position due to alleged performance issues.

    • The COA also found that the MSA was presented to Fatimah without prior notice, negotiation opportunity, or even the time for legal consultation.

    • The COA held that this amounted to an unlawful dismissal disguised as a mutual separation.

    • While the COA would not be able to reinstate Fatimah due to her age, as she has already reached retirement age, the Court did award her RM 177,600.00 in back wages which reflected two years’ worth of salary.

    No tags.

    admin

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 9 of 2026
    • Legal Update 8 of 2026
    • Legal Update 7 of 2026
    • Legal Update 6 of 2026
    • Legal Update 5 of 2026
    • Legal Update 4 of 2026
    • Legal Update 3 of 2026

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Our Reported Cases
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil