Recently, the Court of Appeal, comprising The Hon. Justice Datuk See Mee Chun, Hon. Justice Datuk Azhahari Kamal, and Hon. Justice Datuk Wong Kian Kheong, granted leave for our Client to appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision. This development is crucial to our Client’s business operations moving forward. Our Mr. Jonathan K, acted as counsel for the Client, who operates a business organizing kiosks in shopping malls across Malaysia, employing many individuals in similar roles as the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Case Background
The case involves two Respondents, Ms. R1 and Ms. R2, who had brought claims against our Client at the Labour Court, most notably for, maternity leaves and wages:-
- Ms. R1 did not claim maternity leave when it was due, despite returning to work after giving birth on January 7, 2022, and resigning on May 30, 2022. It was only in July 2022 that she raised the issue before the Labour Court and was successful in her claim.
- Ms. R2 resigned on June 14, 2022, with a two-month notice period. The next day, she was issued a Show Cause Letter for Poor Performance, with a 24-hour response time. She did not respond, and her employment was terminated during her notice period. Despite this, she successfully claimed against our Client at the Labour Court.
The Respondents’ claims were subsequently confirmed by the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Given the far-reaching effects on their other employees in comparable roles, our Client was compelled to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
Importance of the Leave Application
The leave application is a critical step, filtering out unmeritorious appeals. The Court of Appeal generally does not interfere with lower court findings unless a clear error is shown. Our Client had to establish a prima facie case of error to succeed.
Our Key Arguments Presented
- Ms. R1’s Employment Status: The term “part-time employee” was used descriptively and should not be construed as a definitive legal characterization of the working relationship. The true nature of the relationship aligns more with that of an independent contractor.
- Ms. R2’s Termination: While the 24-hour response time was brief, it was not unreasonable as to excuse Ms R2 for ‘total non-response’, which could have at least, a request for more time to reply. Ms. R2’s total lack of response indicated a disregard for the employer’s authority, justifying dismissal.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision to grant leave is a vital step for our Client. This allows the case to proceed to a full appeal, where we will continue to advocate strongly on our Client’s behalf.
Note: This Article does not constitute legal advice. For further information, don’t hesitate to contact us.