Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2880
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ABDUL NASIR AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
7-ELEVEN MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCvC-565-10/2022]
The court affirmed that impulsive resignation does not constitute constructive dismissal, emphasizing the Contract Test over the Reasonableness Test in such cases.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Section 23 – Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Constructive dismissal – Employee's resignation deemed impulsive and not constituting constructive dismissal – Court found no breach of employment contract by employer – Claim struck out as unsustainable. (Paras 1, 30)
(B) Jurisdiction – High Court's jurisdiction to hear constructive dismissal claims not ousted by Industrial Relations Act – Industrial Court is the appropriate forum for such claims. (Paras 14, 19)
(C) Contract Test – The primary test for constructive dismissal is the Contract Test, not the Reasonableness Test, as upheld by Malaysian courts. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff, a Financial Controller, resigned after a meeting discussing potential restructuring, feeling aggrieved despite no decisions being made. He sought damages for breach of contract and constructive dismissal after receiving full emoluments during his notice period. (Paras 3-5, 6)
Findings of Court: The court found the Plaintiff's claim unsustainable, emphasizing that he acted impulsively and was not constructively dismissed as no breach occurred. (Paras 30, 31)
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff's resignation constituted constructive dismissal and if the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiff's resignation was impulsive and did not amount to constructive dismissal, reaffirming the Contract Test as the applicable standard. (Paras 20, 30)
Result: Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim was allowed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] Employees who tender their resignation letter in haste, probably while feeling emotional, would find that the law on constructive dismissal does not favour impulsive resignation.
[2] In this case, the Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim was allowed by this court. I found that based on the undisputed facts and recent authorities cited, the Plaintiff's claim was plain and obviously unsustainable.
Background Facts
[3] The Plaintiff was the Defendant's employee. He held the position of a Financial Controller in the Defendant company. On 30 June 2022, he was called to attend a meeting regarding a proposed restructuring exercise. He attended it together with several other employees and were informed that the top management of the Defendant was considering a restructuring of the various portfolios and their respective job scope.
[4] Though those proposals discussed during the meeting on 30 June 2022 included a proposal that would require the Plaintiff to report to another senior management staff instead of directly to the Finance Director, there was no decision made at the meeting. However, the Plaintiff felt so aggrieved that on the following day he tendered a resignation letter dated 1 July 2022, to give notice of his resignation for him to depart in three months.
[5] The Defendant sent a reply on 13 July 2022 to the Plaintiff, to clarify and reassured the Plaintiff that he was regarded as "a valuable member of the company". Despite the reassurance, the Plaintiff decided to follow through with his resignation. His request to go on 'garden leave' early, as from 15 July 2022, was allowed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was duly paid all emoluments for the notice period of three months, until 30 September 2022. It was undisputed that there was no restructuring exercise performed by the Defendant whilst the Plaintiff was still physically at work on 14 July 2022.
[6] The Plaintiff subsequently sought legal advice and proceeded to file this civil suit, pleading breach of contract and/or constructive dismissal and "tort of giving emotional pressure (tort sengaja memberi tekanan emosi)" and/or "tort of harassment (tort gangguan)". The prayers in his Statement of Claim were as follows:
a. Gantirugi Khas dan pampasan bagi pelanggaran klausa-klausa nyata dan tersirat surat tawaran tersebut dan terma & syarat tersebut dan / atau pemecatan terbina dan tort sengaja memberi tekanan emosi dan / atau tort gangguan tidak wajar sebanyak RM4,708,991.56 iaitu nilai penuh manfaat pekerjaan Plaintif dalam syarikat Defendan bagi tempoh 8 tahun seperti
[7] As could be seen from the Plaintiff's prayers, he was seeking Special Damages and compensation of RM4,708,991.56 for alleged breach of express and implied terms of his employment contract and/or constructive dismissal and/or various so-called torts.
The Defendant's Striking-Out Application
[8] The Defendant sought a striking-out order primarily on the basis that it had taken no action that could be construed as "constructive dismissal" of the Plaintiff. It was further submitted that even if this civil suit is to proceed to trial, the Plaintiff who had received full payment of all emoluments due to him under his employment contract, would not be entitled to claim the damages prayed in his Statement of Claim.
[9] Fortuitously for the Defendant in this case, there was a recent reported judgment of the court of Appeal which fits the facts of this case snugly. In 7 Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Ashvine Hari Krishnan , , the Defendant herein was the appellant/defendant. Its application to strike out the respondent/plaintiff's claim under O 18 r 19(1) was dismissed by the High court. However, upon appeal, the court of Appeal allowed the said appeal and ordered the Plaintiff's claim to be struck out summarily.
[10] Having succeeded in persuading the court of Appeal to decide in its favour in 7 Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Ashvine Hari Krishnan (supra), the Defenda
