AWARD

(Oral Application To Tender Evidence Of An Audio Recording Of A Meeting Held On 12 April 2023)

Paramalingam J Doraisamy:

Reference

[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177), arising out of the dismissal of Lim Teong Kim (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Perak FC Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 24 May 2023.

[2] This matter was called up for continued hearing on 6 March 2025 in the presence of Mr Edward Andrew Saw Keat Leong (Mr Jerry Low Kok Kiang together with him), Counsel for the Claimant, and Mr Weera Premananda (Cik Nurin Husnina Binti Hussein together with him), Counsel for the Company.

[3] On the said hearing date of 6 March 2025, in particular at the end of the trial and right after the Claimant had closed his case, Counsel for the Company made an oral application to this Court for leave to tender an audio recording of a meeting held on 12 April 2023 ("the Audio Recording") together with the corresponding transcript.

[4] Learned Counsel for the Company submitted that the Audio Recording has now become relevant and a material evidence in this case in order to challenge the credibility of the Claimant's second witness, ie Muhammad Hadi Fayyadh Bin Abdul Razak (CLW-2; Football Player currently with PDRM FC). Learned Counsel for the Company further submitted that the Company initially did not see the need to tender the Audio Recording until Claimant subpoenaed CLW-2, whose testimony before this Court allegedly contradicted with what he had previously said at the meeting on 12 April 2023 and whether CLW-2 had made any adverse statements against the Claimant at the said meeting. Due to the said contradiction, it would be just for the Company to adduce the evidence for proper assessment of the case by this Court .

[5] Learned Counsel for the Claimant objected to the said application by the Company based on the following:

i. The meeting on 12 April 2023 has been in contention ever since the pleadings had been filed, in particular at para 61 of the Statement In Reply);

ii. While COW-1 was testifying, there were questions posed to him as to why the document at CLB-1 p 33, ie the minutes of the meeting on 12 April 2023, differed from that on COB-1 p 65. Learned Counsel for the Claimant had put a question to COW-1 that the document at CLB-1 p 33 was not a genuine document, at which point, if the Company had possession of the Audio Recording at the material time, they should have tendered the same at that point in time;

iii. This case was fixed for continued hearing on 5 March 2025 and it was still at the stage of Company's Case, and at which time they had already had notice that the Claimant would be calling CLW-2 to testify. However, the Company chose to close its case on 5 March 2025;

iv. The Company's application would also cause inconvenience as the case was already about to go into submissions stage. If the application is allowed, the Company would have to tender the device, transcript etc. through the witness who did the recording. And to do that at this stage will be absolutely inconvenient to the parties.

[6] After hearing submissions from both Counsel for the Company and the Claimant, this Court dismissed the Company's application and read out its broad grounds of decision, which is as follows:

i. This is an oral application made by the Company to adduce evidence of the Audio Recording of the meeting held on 12 April 2023. To say this is an application made at the eleventh hour is an understatement. In fact, the clock had already ticked past 12.00 o'clock. Both the Company and the Claimant had already closed their respective cases and the Court was about to give its directions on the filing of the written submissions by both parties;

ii. The evidence which the Company seeks to introduce before this Court , ie the Audio Recording, was already in their possession from the outset of this case. In fact, it was one of the reasons which led to th