Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2070
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
WONG FORKLIFT HIRE & SERVICES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-352-11/2023]
The court emphasized that an applicant must demonstrate special circumstances to justify a stay of execution, which must be more than ordinary or usual circumstances, asserting that successful litigants should not be deprived of the fruits of a judgment.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20 - Judicial Review - Application for Leave to commence judicial review filed by a private limited company against the Industrial Court's decision awarding compensation to the employee for wrongful dismissal - The court dismissed the application for stay of execution of the Award, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating special circumstances for such a stay. (Paras 1, 15, 34)
(B) Stay of Execution - The principles governing stay of execution require the applicant to show special circumstances, which must be more than ordinary or usual circumstances. The court ruled that the applicant's claims did not constitute special circumstances, and that the successful litigant should not be deprived of the fruits of a judgment. (Paras 18, 30)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a private limited company, sought judicial review of the Industrial Court's award for the 2nd respondent, who claimed wrongful dismissal and was awarded RM1,012,000. The applicant contended that the court erred in its decision and sought a stay of execution pending the review. (Paras 4-12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any special circumstances that would justify a stay of execution. The 2nd respondent, as a successful litigant, was entitled to the fruits of the judgment. (Paras 33-34)
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant demonstrated special circumstances justifying a stay of execution and the implications of enforcing the award pending review. (Paras 18, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant's allegations of error by the Industrial Court did not constitute special circumstances, and that the execution of the award would not render the judicial review application nugatory. (Paras 18, 30)
Result: The application for stay of execution was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the award amount within 30 days. (Paras 34, 35)
Introduction
[1] The Applicant on 9 November 2023 filed an Application for Leave to commence for judicial review to seek the following reliefs:
1. An order that the Applicant be granted leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari to move to this Honourable Court for the purpose of quashing the entire decision of the Industrial Court Award No 2131 of 2023 dated 19 October 2023 by the 1st Respondent, the Industrial Court (Industrial Court) which was received by the Applicant on 26 October 2023 (the Award).
2. An order that all further proceedings to enforce and/or execute the decision of the Industrial Court in the Award be stayed until the full and final disposal of the Judicial Review Application before this Honourable Court;
3. Costs for and ancillary to this application be costs in the cause; and
4. Further and/or other reliefs as deemed appropriate by this Honourable Court.
[2] On 12 December 2023, this Honourable Court had heard the Applicant's Application for Leave to commence judicial review and had allowed prayer 1. The 2nd Respondent however opposed the Applicant's Application for a stay of execution of the Award in prayer 2 of Encl 1 pending the disposal of the Applicant's application for a judicial review before this Honourable Court.
[3] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's application for a stay of execution of the Award in prayer 2 of Enel. 1. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.
Background Facts
[4] The Applicant is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia on 26 January 2001 which is primarily involved in the import, repair, service, maintenance, trade and rental business of forklifts. The Applicant Company was founded by Mr Wong Kok Wan (Deceased) together with Ms Sim Foo Yoke, as directors and having equal shareholding.
[5] The 2nd respondent is the eldest son of Mr Wong Kok Wan (Deceased) and was offered by Mr Wong Kok Wan (Deceased) to join the Applicant's company as a general staff and/or repairman with the scope of work to repair and maintain forklifts. At all material times, the 2nd Respondent earned the minimum wage prescribed pursuant to the Employment Act 1955.
[6] On or around 2004, the business of the Applicant company had expanded and the Applicant had opened a branch in Shah Alam to accommodate the increase in the number of forklifts due to limited workspace at the Applicant company's headquarters in Klang. The Applicant had assigned the 2nd Respondent to work at the Shah Alam branch as a general worker and/or repairman.
[7] On 16 March 2018, Mr Wong Kok Wan (Deceased) passed away and Madam Sim Foo Yoke as a director and sole shareholder, assumed the duties and roles of Mr Wong Kok Wan (Deceased) in managing the operations and business of the Applicant company.
[8] On 10 April 2019, the Applicant company received a letter dated 10 April 2019 from the 2nd Respondent claiming that, among other things, the 2nd Respondent's salary had been unilaterally reduced, the Applicant did not pay the 2nd Respondent's salary for February and March 2019, the Applicant did not make payment contribution for the 2nd Respondent's EPF and SOCSO, and the Applicant did not give work to the 2nd Respondent until the 2nd Respondent was deemed to be 'cold storage'. The 2nd Respondent had requested the Applicant to respond to his letter by 5pm on 15 April 2019 at the latest, failing which the 2nd Respondent shall deem himself to be constructively dismissed.
[9] On 15 April 2019, The Applicant through its letter dated 15 April 2019 responded to the 2nd Respondent and denied the contents of the 2nd Respondent's letter dated 10 April 2019 and provided the Applicant justifications. At the same time, the Applicant also requested that the 2nd Respondent attend the Applicant's office on 19 April 2019 to discuss the issues raised.
[10] Although the Applicant had replied to the 2nd Respondent's letter dated 10 April 2019, the 2nd Respondent had on 16 April 2019 sent his letter date
