JUDGMENT

Azahar Mohamed CJM:

Introduction

[1] The two related appeals before this Court raise an important issue in relation to the principle of restrictive doctrine of sovereignty immunity in an employment dispute.

[2] In essence, under the restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity, immunity would not be granted if a sovereign state performs certain private acts or transactions which are commercial in nature. If the dispute brings into question for instance executive or governmental policy of the sovereign state, the Court or tribunal should grant immunity if asked to do so, because it offends the dignity of a foreign sovereign to have the merits of such a dispute canvassed in the domestic courts or tribunal of another country (see Rahimtoola v. HEH The Nizam of Hyderabad and Others [1958] AC 379 at p 422, The 'I Congreso Del Partido [1981] 2 All ER 1 1064, Commonwealth Of Australia v. Midford (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor, [1990] 1 MLJ 475 SC, Hii Yii Ann v. Deputy Commissioner Of Taxation Of The Commonwealth Of Australia & Ors; 2017 MarsdenLR 211 ; [2017] 10 CLJ 743; [2017] 5 AMR 684 HC).

[3] The very important question this judgment sets out to address is whether, in the context of an emp