Civil courts retain jurisdiction over unjust dismissal claims despite limitations in the Industrial Relations Act; excessive claims do not automatically indicate abuse of process.

JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful termination of service against the Defendant. The Defendant's application was made in pursuant of O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules")

Brief Facts

[2] The Plaintiff was a former employee of the Defendant whereby by virtue of an agreement signed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 19 October 2019, the Plaintiff was appointed as a senior manager at the human resource division of the Defendant.

[3] The Plaintiff's claim basically is aimed at the General Manager in the Human Resource Department by the name of Liew Kian Meng who had persistently harassed and insulted the Plaintiff to an extent that the Plaintiff was pressurized into quitting her job on 3 May 2021.

[4] The Plaintiff also contended that the Defendant as a company was negligent in allowing the said general manager to create an unconducive atmosphere at the workplace and to monitor the activities at the workplace.

[5] The Plaintiff alleges further that the Defendant has breached the contract of service resulting the Plaintiff from suffering various losses including loss of salary and causing mental anguish to the Plaintiff.

[6] The Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim is on the grounds that the manner in which the statement of claim is drafted shows no cause of action against the Defendant, the High Court has no jurisdiction hear matter to constructive dismissal or unjust dismissals and finally the exorbitant amount of damages claimed by the Plaintiff.

The Issues

[7] The various grounds for striking out are as stated in O 18 r 19 and for ease of reference are reproduced here are as follows:

19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O 18 r 19)

(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that-

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.

(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a).

[8] Based on the above provision of the Rules the Court ruled that the issues to be determined in this case are whether the Plaintiff's statement of claim discloses any cause of action against the Defendant, whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear constructive dismissal claim and whether the exorbitant sum claimed is an abuse of the process of Court.

The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim

[9] The main grouse of the Defendant against the Plaintiff's claim is that the manner the statement of claim is drafted appears as a long winded rant of a dissatisfied employee against the General Manager of the human resource division of the Defendant by the name of Liew Kian Meng. As such it does not disclose any cause of action against the Defendant.

[10] The manner in which a statement of claim should be drafted is clearly spelled out in O 18 r 7 of the Rules which states as follows:

7. Facts, not evidence, to be pleaded (O 18 r 7)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and rr 10, 11 and 12, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved, and the statement shall be as brief as the nature of the case admits.

(2) Without prejudice to paragraph (1), the effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in the pleading shall, if material, be briefly stated, and the precise words of the document or conversation shall not be stated, except in so