WOO VAIN CHAN vs MALAYAWATA STEEL BERHAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 1293

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
WOO VAIN CHAN – Appellant
Versus
MALAYAWATA STEEL BERHAD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. employment changes and organizational restructure led to disputed dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appellant's termination letter initiated legal proceedings. (Para 6 , 8 , 10)
3. dispute over dismissal justification and claim of redundancy. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 18)
4. court's affirmation of cic's role in determining redundancy validity. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 26)
5. court of appeal restored initial findings of unjust dismissal. (Para 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT

Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim JCA:

Factual Background Of The Case

[1] Woo Vain Chan ("the appellant") commenced employment with Malayawata Steel Berhad (currently known as Ann Joo Steel Berhad) ("the respondent") on 10 August 2000 as Vice President (Investment and General Affairs).

[2] The respondent had investments in areas such as properties and palm oil estates.

[3] In August 2001, the respondent revised its existing structure wherein the appellant, under this reorganisation, was redesignated to the position of Vice President (Plantation and Property Investment Division) ("PPID") who was responsible for the daily operations of the new Plantation and Property Investment Division. In addition, the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 1293

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAWOO VAIN CHAN – AppellantVersusMALAYAWATA STEEL BERHAD – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
WOO VAIN CHAN – Appellant
Versus
MALAYAWATA STEEL BERHAD – Respondent