LYE SOOK FUN vs AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 2129

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LYE SOOK FUN – Appellant
Versus
AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ANOR – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Ramesh K Supramaniam ,Respondent Advocate: Wong Kian Jun

Table of Content
1. termination of employment and grounds for dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. applicant's arguments against termination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. bank's defense on performance evaluation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. court's assessment of the industrial court's findings. (Para 27 , 28)
5. review of procedural issues in trial. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. incompetence of counsel and its effect on fair trial. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
7. legal standards for probation and termination. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
8. review standards for factual findings. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
9. evaluation of applicant's performance and delays. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
10. conclusions on the reasons for termination. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86)
11. final ruling on the case. (Para 88 , 89)

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Lye Sook Fun, a probationer with AmBank (M) Berhad ("the Bank"), complained that she was dismissed without just cause and excuse whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 2129

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURLYE SOOK FUN – AppellantVersusAMBANK (M) BERHAD & ANOR – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LYE SOOK FUN – Appellant
Versus
AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ANOR – Respondent