1. ) Affirm Plus Properties Sdn. Bhd. v Jerome LIM Ming Chieh (WA-A72NCvC-9196-12/2023)

1.

Affirm Plus Properties Sdn. Bhd. (Plaintiff 1) Appilliate Sdn. Bhd. (Plaintiff 2) AND Jerome Lim Ming Chieh (Defendant) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction This case concerns a contractual dispute between the Plaintiffs, Affirm Plus Properties Sdn. Bhd. and Appilliate Sdn. Bhd., and the Defendant, Jerome Lim Ming Chieh, regarding the enforcement of Clause 3(b) of the Employment Agreement and a claim for damages to company property. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to serve the required notice period before ceasing employment, thereby breaching his contractual obligations. Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim RM1,250.00 for alleged damage to a company-issued laptop. The Defendant disputes both claims, asserting that he was constructively dismissed and that he did not cause the alleged laptop damage. During the trial, two witnesses were called to testify. The Plaintiffs called SP-1 (Mr. Lee Peng Hong), who provided evidence regarding the Defendant’s employment, his failure to serve notice, and the alleged laptop damage. The Defendant testified as SD1, where he disputed the claims made against him and asserted constructive dismissal. Jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court A fundamental issue raised by the Defendant is whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defendant contends that his cessation of employment was due to constructive dismissal and that such disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 20 of the Industrial 09/04/2025 13:16:56 WA-A72NCvC-9196-12/2023 Kand. 38 S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw Relations Act 1967. He argues that the Plaintiffs’ claim for RM12,000.00 in lieu of notice circumvents the Industrial Court’s authority. The distinction between contractual enforcement and industrial relations disputes was clearly articulated in Holiday Inn, Kuching v Lee Chai Siok Elizabeth [1992] 1 MLJ 230, where the High Court held that: “Claims for constructive dismissal fall squarely within the Industrial Court’s purview, and it is not for civil courts to determine whether a dismissal was justified.” However, the Court in Holiday Inn, Kuching went further to affirm the jurisdiction of civil courts in contractual disputes, ruling that claims for salary in lieu of notice arise purely from contractual obligations and do not require an assessment of fairness or reasonableness under employment law. This principle was reinforced in Teoh Kung Yu v Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor [2023] MLJU 1675, where the High Court ruled that the Industrial Court’s jurisdiction is confined to cases where reinstatement is sought. The Court stated: “If a workman does not require reinstatement, there would not be reference to the Industrial Court under section 20(3) of IRA.” Further strengthening this distinction, the Court of Appeal in 7-Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Ashvine Hari Krishnan [2023] MLJU 631 ruled that: “Having regard to the purpose for which the Act was enacted, it was wholly incumbent upon the Plaintiff, who complains that she had been constructively dismissed, to invoke the statutory remedy under the Act, instead of filing a civil action.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is purely contractual, as it does not seek a determination on dismissal but rather enforces Clause 3(b) of the Employment Agreement. This Honourable Court retains jurisdiction over contractual disputes, including claims for salary in lieu of notice. S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw Enforceability of Clause 3(b) and the Defendant’s Breach Clause 3(b) of the Employment Agreement (Exhibit P1) provides: “Upon confirmation of your employment, you may terminate the employment by giving two (2) months’ notice in writing or immediately by paying two (2) months’ salary in lieu of notice.” The Defendant, having voluntarily entered into this agreement, was contractually bound to either serve two months’ notice or compensate the Plaintiffs accordingly. During cross-examination, the Defendant made several notable admissions: a) He was never formally dismissed by the Plaintiffs; b) He did not receive any termination letter; c) He did not attempt to clarify his employment status with HR before ceasing work; d) He continued to receive his salary until the end of November 2023; e) He could not identify any clause in his Employment Agreement that was breached. These admissions further undermine the Defendant’s assertion that he was constructively dismissed, as they suggest that he acted unilaterally in ceasing work without first exhausting proper channels for dispute resolution. The Defendant admitted that he was never formally dismissed by the Plaintiffs and did not receive any termination letter. This directly contradicts his claim of constructive dismissal, as an employer’s failure to formally dismiss an employee is inconsistent with an allegation of forced termination. Constructive dismissal requires clear evidence of intolerable working conditions, yet the Defendant himself confirmed that he did not attempt to clarify his employment status with HR before ceasing work. If he genuinely believed he was being forced out, he would have sought clarification before making such a S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw drastic decision. His continued receipt of salary until the end of November 2023 further weakens his case, as it suggests that he was still under employment during that period. Additionally, he failed to identify any specific clause in his Employment Agreement that was breached. Without identifying a fundamental contractual breach by the employer, his assertion of constructive dismissal is legally unsustainable. The Plaintiffs, through SP-1 (Mr. Lee Peng Hong), testified that the Defendant abruptly stopped reporting to work on 14.11.2023, despite acknowledging the terms of the Employment Agreement. During cross-examination, the Defendant explicitly admitted that he had executed the Employment Agreement and was fully aware of its terms. When asked whether he agreed to the contents of the contract, he unequivocally responded in the affirmative: PP: “You agree with the contents and terms of this agreement?” SD1: “Yes.” PP: “So, by executing this employment agreement, you agree with the terms and conditions, correct?” SD1: “Yes.” SP-1 further confirmed that the Defendant did not submit any formal resignation letter, nor did he provide any valid reason for failing to comply with the notice requirement., despite being fully aware of the contractual requirements under Clause 3(b). During cross-examination, SP-1 confirmed that the Defendant did not submit any formal resignation letter, nor did he provide any valid reason for failing to comply with the notice requirement. The Defendant claims that his failure to serve notice was justified due to constructive dismissal. However, under the contract test for constructive dismissal established in Anwar Abdul Rahim v Bayer (M) Sdn Bhd [1988] 2 CLJ 197, an employee must prove: a) That the employer breached a fundamental term of the contract; b) That the breach was so serious that it justified resignation; S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw c) That the resignation was a direct response to the breach; and d) That the employee did not delay in resigning after the breach occurred. This principle was reaffirmed in Abdul Sidik bin Abdul Hamid v Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] MLJU 1588, where the High Court ruled that the burden is on the employee to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the employer fundamentally breached the contract. The Court stated: “The burden is on the employee to prove that the employer breached the contract in a manner that goes to the root of the said contract or evinced an intention no longer to be bound by it.” The burden of proof in constructive dismissal cases rests squarely on the employee, as reaffirmed in Anwar Abdul Rahim v Bayer (M) Sdn Bhd [1988] 2 CLJ 197. However, the Defendant did not produce any email correspondence, witness testimony, or written grievances demonstrating that he raised concerns about unfair treatment prior to his resignation. In fact, no internal complaint was lodged with HR regarding the alleged mistreatment, nor was there any formal protest against the warning letters. The absence of these essential elements severely weakens the Defendant’s claim that the work environment was so intolerable that he had no choice but to resign. Thus, the Defendant has not produced sufficient evidence to establish that the Plaintiffs’ actions amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. Mere dissatisfaction or allegations of unfair treatment are insufficient to justify non-compliance with Clause 3(b). Accordingly, the Defendant’s failure to serve notice or pay in lieu constitutes a clear contractual breach, entitling the Plaintiffs to claim RM12,000.00. Claim for Laptop Damage The Plaintiffs also claim RM1,250.00 in damages for an alleged company laptop damage. However, under Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging a fact. The Plaintiffs must prove: S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw That the laptop was damaged while in the Defendant’s possession and that the Defendant’s actions caused the damage. While the Plaintiffs rely on Exhibit P4 (Repair Invoice) as evidence of the repair cost, they have not provided contemporaneous proof confirming the condition of the laptop at the time of return. There is no signed acknowledgment, photographic evidence, or independent verification supporting the claim that the damage was caused by the Defendant. During cross-examination, SP-1 admitted that there was no documented evidence showing that the Defendant returned the laptop in a damaged condition. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs failed to call any IT personnel or other witnesses to verify that the damage occurred while the Defendant was still in possession of the device. Under Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, the burden of proof falls on the Plaintiffs to establish that (1) the laptop was in good condition when handed to the Defendant,

the damage occurred while the laptop was under the Defendant’s possession, and

the Defendant’s actions directly caused the damage. However, the Plaintiffs failed to tender any contemporaneous records showing the condition of the laptop at the time of issuance or return. SP-1 admitted during cross-examination that there was no formal handover document or photographic evidence of the alleged damage. The Plaintiffs also did not call any IT personnel or repair technicians to testify that the damage occurred due to the Defendant’s actions. The absence of such critical evidence raises serious doubts about the validity of the claim. The principle of ‘he who asserts must prove’ applies here, and the Plaintiffs have not discharged their evidentiary burden, leading to the inevitable conclusion that this claim must be dismissed. The absence of direct evidence creates reasonable doubt, and as such, the claim for RM 1,250.00 must fail. Conclusion The Plaintiffs’ claim for RM12,000.00 is allowed, as the Defendant breached Clause 3(b) of the Employment Agreement. S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw The Plaintiffs’ claim for RM1,250.00 for laptop damage is dismissed, as the burden of proof was not met. In employment disputes, the sanctity of contractual obligations must be upheld. The evidence before this Court overwhelmingly supports the Plaintiffs' claim for salary in lieu of notice, as the Defendant's failure to provide the required notice period is a clear contractual breach. Conversely, the Plaintiffs' claim for laptop damages fails due to a lack of direct evidence. The law is clear—claims must be substantiated with cogent evidence, and mere assertions without proof cannot be entertained. This Court, therefore, finds in favour of the Plaintiffs on the claim for RM12,000.00, while dismissing the claim for RM1,250.00 for laptop damages. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiffs for RM12,000.00, with costs of RM3,000.00. Reflection: Implications for Industry and Human Resource Practice The present case presents valuable lessons for both employers and employees navigating the landscape of employment contracts. While statutory mechanisms such as Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 provide avenues for employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed, it is equally important to recognise the enduring role of contractual obligations—particularly in circumstances where reinstatement is not sought. Employers and human resource professionals should view this judgment as a reminder of the importance of maintaining thorough documentation throughout the employment relationship. From the issuance of contracts and warnings to the management of resignations and asset recovery, procedural clarity and proper record-keeping can protect an organisation against unfounded claims. In this case, the failure to document the condition of the returned laptop rendered the damages claim untenable. Such oversights, though seemingly minor, can prove fatal in litigation. On the other hand, employees contemplating resignation under the belief that they have been constructively dismissed must approach the matter with caution. Constructive dismissal is not determined based on feelings of dissatisfaction alone— it requires clear, demonstrable evidence of a fundamental breach of contract by the S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw employer. Internal grievances or formal written complaints, if any, can play a crucial role in substantiating such claims. The absence of these indicators, as demonstrated here, can significantly weaken the employee’s case. Ultimately, this case reinforces the principle that civil courts are guided by the four corners of the contract. Claims arising from employment must be appropriately framed—either as statutory disputes under the industrial law framework or as contractual claims within civil jurisdiction. Where the latter is chosen, the burden to prove each element of the claim or defence with precision remains paramount. This judgment serves as a timely reminder that clarity, evidence, and adherence to contractual terms form the cornerstone of legal recourse in employment disputes. 25 March 2025 Norhanum Hassan Magistrate Civil 5 Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court S/N OAuJp8rSzUarv1j12huAw