Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

Introduction

[1] This is a claim concerning a contractual dispute arising from an employment relationship between the plaintiff who was engaged as business manager and a company operating a chain of hotpot restaurants. The plaintiff claims substantial damages for what she characterises as the defendant's repudiatory breach of a fixed-term contract of service. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, through its conduct, required her to relinquish her managerial position without making proper arrangements for her continued employment.

[2] The defendant denies any breach contending instead that the plaintiff abandoned her employment. It also raises preliminary objections on the proper forum for adjudication.

Brief Background Of Facts

[3] The plaintiff commenced her career with Haidilao Hot Pot operations in China in 2015 under the employment of Haihongda (Beijing) Catering Management Co Limited. In August 2020, she was reassigned to Malaysia under the defendant's employment.

[4] On 1 August 2020, the parties executed a fixed-term contract of service whereby the plaintiff was appointed as the Business Manager-Asia Pacific for a term of five years from 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2025. The plaintiff's monthly salary was RM30,000.00. The contract contained an agreed liquidated damages clause requiring payment of RM30,000.00 per month for the unexpired term upon termination by either party with one month's notice.

[5] Sometime in early April 2022, the defendant's Regional Manager, Mr Zhou Shaohua, approached the plaintiff at her workplace and demanded that she immediately relinquish her managerial position. He instructed her not to report for work the following day pending new work arrangements.

[6] On the following day, the plaintiff completed the handover process, signed a handover form and surrendered it to the replacement branch manager, Ms Zhang Qingwang. The plaintiff then took annual and medical leave during April and May 2022 which included self-quarantine due to COVID-19.

[7] In July 2022, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had ceased paying her full salary for June and July 2022. On 24 July 2022, the plaintiff emailed Mr Zhou seeking clarification on her work arrangements and raising concern that someone had contacted her regarding the removal of her employment data from the defendant's database.

[8] On the same day, Mr Zhou replied, apologising and admitting to an oversight in arranging her work placement. He explained that from June 2022, Mr Wang had assumed responsibility for the Singapore and Malaysia regions but that he had failed to liaise with Mr Wang on the plaintiff's situation.

[9] On 26 July 2022, Mr Zhou offered the plaintiff a position as junior assistant to Mr Wang. The plaintiff rejected the offer by an email dated 28 July 2022. When she received no reply, the plaintiff sent further emails on 1 August 2022 demanding clear instructions by 4 August 2022 and on 6 August 2022 giving express notice that the defendant's conduct had terminated the contract. The defendant did not respond.

[10] During the proceedings, the defendant sought to rely on three documents classified as Part C. The plaintiff disputed the authenticity of these documents, alleging forgery. The plaintiff denied ever signing these documents. These documents are as follows:

(a) a purported second fixed-term contract dated 9 August 2021 for one year from 1 November 2021 to 31 October 2022,

(b) a promissory note dated 18 February 2022, and

(c) a transfer notice dated 4 April 2022.

[11] The defendant produced a certificate under s 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 through Mr Wong Jia Neng, the Legal Counsel of the defendant's parent company in Singapore, in an attempt to convert and reclassify these documents from Part C to Part B.

[12] The plaintiff engaged the Department of Chemistry Malaysia to conduct a forensic examination of certain documents but omitted the impugned second contract from that examination.

[13] Pursuan