Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ACE HOLDINGS BHD – Appellant
Versus
NORAHAYU RAHMAD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. preliminary objections raised by appellant (Para 8) |
| 3. judicial review application and high court's decision (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. main issues for determination in the appeal (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. analysis of relevant legal principles and precedents (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. public policy considerations regarding workman's claims (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. binding effect of previous decisions (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. joint hearing approach endorsed (Para 30 , 31) |
A. Background
[1] The 1st respondent (1st Respondent) claimed that she had been appointed in 2018 by the appellant company (Appellant) to be the Appellant's Vice President. The Appellant however claimed that the 1st Respondent was not its employee but was instead an "independent agent" who had agreed to refer "high net worth" individuals to invest in its products and services in return for commission.
[2] By way of a letter dated 1 April 2019, the Appellant terminated the 1st Respondent's appointment with effect from 28 March 2019 (1st Respondent's Dismissal).
[3] The 1st Respondent filed Kuala Lumpur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
