B. Braun Medical Industries Sdn Bhd v Mugunthan a/l Vadiveloo

a-01a-590-08-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 23 November 2023 • A-01(A)-590-08/2022

Catchwords

(1) if - (a) an employee (X) had been forced to sign a MSS contract with X’s employer (Y) under Y’s threat that - (i) X’s employment had become redundant; and (ii) Y would retrench X if X did not agree to the MSS contract; and (b) Y had not threatened to dismiss X from employment - whether the court can decide that X’s execution of the MSS contract constituted a dismissal of X by Y without just cause or excuse in the form of a “forced resignation”. This is a novel issue as we are unable to find any previous Malaysian case which has decided on this point; (2) in the factual circumstances as stated in the above sub-paragraph (1) - (a) whether Y bears the legal burden under s 101(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA) to prove on a balance of probabilities that X had signed the MSS contract voluntarily and consequently, X had not been unlawfully dismissed by Y by way of a forced resignation; or (b) does X have to discharge the legal burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that X had been “forced” to resign as Y’s employee by executing the MSS contract involuntarily and as such, X had been unlawfully dismissed by Y? The above issue also concerns a discussion of ss 91, 92 and proviso (a) to s 92 EA; (3) whether the IC and High Court had committed the following error(s) of law - (a) failure to take into account the following relevant facts - (i) negotiations between the Claimant and Respondent regarding the Draft (MSS Agreement) which led to the execution of the MSS Agreement [Negotiations (Draft MSS Agreement)]; (ii) the Claimant’s Request (Time to Consider MSS) which had been accepted by the Respondent; (iii) the Claimant’s Resignation Letter; (iv) the Claimant’s WhatsApp Message (15.1.2019) which amounted to an “admission” by the Claimant under ss 17(1), 18(1) and 21 EA that he had signed the MSS Agreement voluntarily; (v) the Claimant’s Early Release Request which led to the Bilateral Variation (MSS Agreement); and (vi) the Claimant’s conduct [relevant under s 8(2) EA] which did not send any demand, letter, email or WhatsApp message to the Respondent and/or COW1 regarding his forced resignation by way of the MSS Agreement; (b) consideration of irrelevant matters, namely - (i) there was an “offer” or promise by the Respondent to promote the Claimant; and (ii) Ms. Lim should have been called by the Respondent to testify at the IC Hearing regarding the contents of the Respondent’s Document (2 Tables); and (c) when the learned IC Chairman and Judicial Commissioner had decided that the Respondent’s Restructuring was not bona fide; (4) was the Award so irrational or unreasonable that no reasonable IC Chairperson would have made the Award?; and (5) whether the learned Judicial Commissioner had committed an error of law in applying the “plainly wrong” test (applicable in appeals against lower courts’ decisions after trial) in a Judicial Review application.

Practice Areas

(1) if

Judges (3)

Noorin binti Badaruddin Coram Supang Lian Delivered Wong Kian Kheong Coram

Parties (2)

B. Braun Medical Industries Sdn Bhd Appellant Mugunthan a/l Vadiveloo Respondent

Case Significance

B. Braun Medical Industries Sdn Bhd v Mugunthan a/l Vadiveloo is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated November 23, 2023 (citation: a-01a-590-08-2022). The panel comprised Noorin binti Badaruddin, Supang Lian and Wong Kian Kheong, with Supang Lian delivering the judgment.

What was the outcome of B. Braun Medical Industries Sdn Bhd v Mugunthan a/l Vadiveloo?

B. Braun Medical Industries Sdn Bhd v Mugunthan a/l Vadiveloo is a Court of Appeal decision dated November 23, 2023. The case was heard by Noorin binti Badaruddin. See the full judgment for details.