QIU HANGYU v HAI DI LAO MALAYSA SDN BHD

wa-22ncvc-505-09-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 10 August 2025 • WA-22NCvC-505-09/2022

Catchwords

This case concerns a contractual dispute between a Chinese national employed as a business manager and a Malaysian company operating hotpot restaurants. The court finds that it has jurisdiction as the claim is contractual rather than one for constructive dismissal. The defendant’s certificate under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 is defective, rendering the disputed documents inadmissible. However, the second fixed-term contract is found valid based on binding admissions and business necessity. The defendant’s conduct constitutes repudiatory breach. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff for part of the claim while the incentive claim is dismissed for insufficient proof.

Practice Areas

This case concerns a contractual dispute between a Chinese national employed as a business manager and a Malaysian company operating hotpot restaurants. The court finds that it has jurisdiction as the claim is contractual rather than one for constructive dismissal. The defendant’s certificate under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 is defective, rendering the disputed documents inadmissible. However, the second fixed-term contract is found valid based on binding admissions and business necessity. The defendant’s conduct constitutes repudiatory breach. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff for part of the claim while the incentive claim is dismissed for insufficient proof.

Judges (1)

Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh Delivered

Parties (2)

HAI DI LAO MALAYSA Sdn Bhd Defendant Qiu Hangyu Plaintiff

Case Significance

QIU HANGYU v HAI DI LAO MALAYSA SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 10, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-505-09-2022). The case was decided by Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh.

What was the outcome of QIU HANGYU v HAI DI LAO MALAYSA SDN BHD?

QIU HANGYU v HAI DI LAO MALAYSA SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated August 10, 2025. The case was heard by Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh. See the full judgment for details.