Yuvanes Marian Partnership

11/03/2026

𝐀 𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲… 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦.

Recently, I handled a matter where an employee tendered her resignation stating that she would serve notice.

The next day, she came to work, told everyone it was her last day, and left the company.

The employer did what many employers would do, they organised a small farewell and even posted a message in the staff WhatsApp group thanking her for her service.

Months later, the same WhatsApp message and farewell were relied upon by the employee to argue this:

“That shows the employer accepted my immediate resignation and did not require me to serve the notice period.”

In other words, a simple gesture of courtesy was later used as evidence to support a legal claim.

This is a reminder of an important workplace reality:

In employment disputes today, context matters, but so do digital records.

A friendly message, a reaction emoji, or even a farewell celebration can later be interpreted very differently when a dispute arises.

Employers should remember:

• A farewell does not automatically mean the notice period is waived

• Courtesy messages should not be mistaken for legal acceptance of terms

• Clear written communication is always safer when dealing with resignations

Sometimes the most important evidence in a dispute is not a formal letter.

It is a WhatsApp message.

06/03/2026

In employment disputes today, the most damaging evidence is often not a letter,
it’s a WhatsApp message.”

Many employers still think the most important documents in an employment dispute are:

• Warning letters
• Show cause letters
• Termination letters

But in reality, when cases reach the Labour Office or Industrial Court, something else often becomes the most powerful evidence.

"WhatsApp messages"

I have seen cases where a carefully drafted termination letter says one thing…

…but a casual WhatsApp message from a manager says something completely different.

Examples like:

“Just ask him to resign.”

or

“Don’t let her come to work tomorrow.”

or even

“We already decided to terminate him anyway.”

Those few lines sent in seconds can completely undermine the employer’s official position.

Suddenly the narrative changes.

What the company claims in the letter may look structured and lawful.

But what appears in WhatsApp may suggest something very different:

-Pre-determined decisions
-Pressure to resign
-Lack of due process
-Possible constructive dismissal

And when these messages are produced as evidence, they often carry more credibility than a carefully drafted document prepared later.

Because they show what people actually said at the time.

The real lesson for employers is this:

Employment disputes today are no longer decided only by formal documents.

They are increasingly decided by digital conversations.

A single message typed in frustration can become Exhibit A in court.

So the next time a workplace issue arises, remember:

Every WhatsApp message about an employee is potentially a document that may one day be read in court.

💬 Question for employers and HR professionals:

Does your organisation have any internal guideline on how managers should communicate about employees on WhatsApp or internal chats?

Or are those conversations happening without any guardrails?

06/03/2026

“But we already gave him three warning letters.”

That is something many employers say when they face an employment dispute.

From the employer’s perspective, the situation often seems straightforward.

The employee was underperforming.
The company issued warnings.
Management decided to terminate.

Problem solved.

But in employment law, the question the court asks is not simply:

“Did the employee deserve to be terminated?”

The real question is:

⚖️ “Was the termination carried out according to a fair and proper process?”

Many employers focus heavily on the misconduct or poor performance, but overlook something equally important:

👉 Procedure.

Was there a proper investigation?
Was the employee given a chance to explain?
Was the decision made objectively?

Because even when the employer may have a valid reason, a poorly handled process can still create legal exposure.

And when a dispute reaches the Industrial Court, the employer may be required to justify every step that was taken.

This is why employment disputes rarely turn on just one issue.

They often turn on documentation, procedure, and fairness.

For employers, one principle is worth remembering:

A strong case is built long before the dispute begins.

Curious to hear from business owners and HR professionals here:

What do you think is the most challenging part of managing employee disputes, the legal process or the internal workplace dynamics?

25/02/2026

Proud moments like this remind me why mentorship and teamwork matter so much in our profession.

In a recent Industrial Court matter, the learned Chairman dismissed a striking-out application and expressly stated that he had adopted our written submissions. He even asked that his appreciation be conveyed to the senior lawyers involved. It was a humbling and meaningful affirmation of the work done behind the scenes.

What makes this especially rewarding is that the foundation of the submissions was prepared by Sarwitaa Pushparajah, our Legal Assistant, through her research and first draft. It was a strong and sincere effort, and seeing that work evolve into something the Court relied upon is exactly how young legal professionals learn and grow.

This case also reinforced an important principle: every dispute deserves to be heard fully and fairly. Justice is not rushed, it is built through careful reasoning, integrity, and respect for due process.

Grateful for a team that believes in learning, supporting one another, and standing firmly by the principles of the law.

Proud moments like this remind me why mentorship and teamwork matter so much in our profession. In a recent Industrial Court matter, the learned Chairman dismissed a striking-out application and expressly stated that he had adopted our written submissions. He even asked that his appreciation be conv...

25/02/2026

Striking-Out Applications in the Industrial Court: Why Disputes Must Be Heard on Their Merits

Recent developments in the Industrial Court reaffirm an important principle in industrial jurisprudence: once a dispute is referred by the Director General of Industrial Relations under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, the Industrial Court is obliged to hear and determine the matter on its merits. Employers sometimes attempt to strike out claims at a preliminary stage under section 29(fa) of the Act, particularly where reinstatement offers or procedural objections are raised.

However, the Court has consistently held that such applications should only succeed in very limited circumstances. Disputed issues of fact, including whether a reinstatement offer was genuine or admissible, cannot be resolved through affidavit evidence alone and must instead be tested at trial.

This approach aligns with long-standing authorities such as Kathiravelu Ganesan v Kojasa Holdings Bhd and more recent High Court decisions which emphasise that the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to ignore or defeat a valid reference without a proper judicial review challenge.

The Court’s role is to adjudicate whether a dismissal was with or without just cause or excuse, not to summarily dispose of the matter based on contested factual narratives. The significance of this principle lies in its protection of procedural fairness.

Industrial disputes often involve power imbalances and complex factual backgrounds. A full hearing allows both parties to present evidence and ensures that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.

For practitioners and human resource professionals alike, this serves as a reminder that early procedural objections should be approached with caution, and that industrial justice prioritises substantive determination over technical shortcuts.

Striking-Out Applications in the Industrial Court: Why Disputes Must Be Heard on Their Merits Recent developments in the Industrial Court reaffirm an important principle in industrial jurisprudence: once a dispute is referred by the Director General of Industrial Relations under section 20(3) of the...

25/02/2026

The Step Employers Skip… Until It’s Too Late!

Today’s case reminded me of a hard truth many employers only learn after a dispute begins.

An employee may admit to wrongdoing.
There may be evidence.
There may even be witnesses.

But if the correct procedure is not followed, the employer can still end up exposed.

When dealing with misconduct, substance alone is not enough. Process matters just as much.

Before taking disciplinary action, employers should ensure:
1. A proper show cause letter is issued
2. The employee is given a fair chance to respond
3. The explanation is considered objectively
4. A domestic inquiry is conducted where appropriate
5. Findings are documented before any punishment is decided

Too often, decisions are made quickly because the employer feels the misconduct is obvious. Unfortunately, skipping steps at this stage can open the door to disputes, claims, and financial liability later.

A well-handled process does more than protect the company legally, it demonstrates fairness, transparency, and professionalism.

Prevention is always less costly than defence.

If you manage people, remember:

It’s not just about what the employee did. It’s about how the employer responds.

The Step Employers Skip… Until It’s Too Late! Today’s case reminded me of a hard truth many employers only learn after a dispute begins. An employee may admit to wrongdoing. There may be evidence. There may even be witnesses. But if the correct procedure is not followed, the employer can still...

25/02/2026

Reputation Is Built in the Moments No One Applauds.

In the legal profession, reputation is often associated with big wins, strong arguments in court, or high-profile matters.

But the truth is, it’s shaped long before any of that.

It’s built in the small, unseen moments:

When you prepare thoroughly for a case no one is talking about.

When you respond to a client patiently, even after a long day.

When you choose honesty over convenience.

When you treat people with respect, regardless of who they are.

These moments rarely get attention.
There is no applause. No recognition.

But they leave an impression.

Clients notice consistency.
Colleagues notice integrity.
Judges notice preparation.

Over time, these quiet actions form something far more lasting than a single success story.

They form your reputation.

And once built, it speaks for you, even when you’re not in the room.

Reputation Is Built in the Moments No One Applauds. In the legal profession, reputation is often associated with big wins, strong arguments in court, or high-profile matters. But the truth is, it’s shaped long before any of that. It’s built in the small, unseen moments: When you prepare thorough...

24/02/2026

𝑾𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒀𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑪𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒔 𝑩𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝑰𝒕 𝑬𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝑩𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒔!

Today, I met a client whose situation was both frustrating and avoidable.

His case had a strong legal basis. The merits were there. The facts were there. The claim itself was not the problem.

Yet, the case was struck off.

Not because he lost in court.
Not because the law was against him.
But because of an unless order that was not complied with.

For those unfamiliar, an unless order is not a suggestion, it is a strict direction from the Court.

If you fail to comply within the stipulated timeline, the consequences are immediate and often fatal to your case.

In this instance, the required documents were simply not filed on time.

No update was given.
No urgency was communicated.
No corrective steps were taken.

The result? The case was struck off, purely on technical grounds.

When I asked how he came to engage the lawyer handling the matter, his answer was simple:

"𝑰 𝒎𝒆𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒂𝒘𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒑 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒚."

That one sentence says a lot.

Legal representation is not a casual decision. It is not based on convenience, proximity, or chance encounters. The consequences of poor representation are not minor, they can permanently affect your legal rights.

To make matters worse, the situation has now escalated. His mother, who is involved in the same matter, is facing committal proceedings.

This is no longer just about a struck-off case. It is about exposure to serious legal consequences, all stemming from procedural non-compliance and lack of proper handling.

If there is one takeaway from today, it is this:

In law, how your case is handled can be just as important as the case itself.

19/02/2026

𝑾𝒆 𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆 𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒋𝒐𝒃.”

Let that sink in.

The employee was assigned to visit a customer.
The employer says he didn’t go.
He says he did, but the documentation was poor.

So the company labelled it *misconduct*.

But is inability to prove a task the same as dishonesty?

Misconduct is serious.
It implies wilful breach, dishonesty, insubordination, or serious negligence.

Poor documentation?
That’s usually a management issue.

Unless there is evidence of falsification, deliberate deception, or repeated refusal to follow SOP, we are not talking about fraud.

We are talking about systems.

Court often focuses on one uncomfortable question:

Did the employer prove he did not go?
Or did the employee simply fail to produce proof?

Those are two very different things.

The burden of proving misconduct lies on the employer.

And even if there was a lapse, the Court will still ask:

Was dismissal proportionate?
Were there prior warnings?
Was there a proper inquiry?
Was this progressive discipline — or an escalation driven by frustration?

Too often, “misconduct” becomes a convenient label.

But the law looks beyond labels.

Sometimes what is framed as misconduct is actually:
• Weak documentation systems
• Poor supervision
• Or impatience with performance issues

Before terminating for misconduct, employers should pause and ask:

Is this a breach of trust?
Or is this a management failure?

Where do you draw the line between poor documentation and misconduct?

27/06/2024

Whether legal fee is a species of special damages and thus claimable over and on top of costs in a legal proceeding?

In the recent case of Golden Star & Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Anor and another appeal [2024] MLJU 909, the Federal Court held as follows:-

(i) The court agrees with the appellants that respondents cannot claim legal charges, fees, or costs as special damages in the same proceedings between the same parties, based on principles, policy, and social policy.

(ii) The court answers both questions in favor of the appellants, stating that costs, including legal costs, are distinct from damages and cannot be recovered as special damages in the same proceedings between the same parties.

(iii) The appeals are allowed, and the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court awarding legal fees as part of special damages are set aside. The specific amount of RM2,604,000.00 is set aside, while other orders of the High Court are maintained.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7212095003475554304

21/06/2024

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yuvanes-marian-partnership_legalupdate-employmentlaw-courtruling-activity-7209926671964020738-Xw9w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android