No Hearing Is Not An Automatic Win

What The Case Decided

Dreamland Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd v Choong Chin Sooi, decided by the Supreme Court in 1988 and reported at [1988] 1 MLJ 111, reinforces that a missing internal hearing does not settle a dismissal case.

The court held that an irregularity in, or the outright absence of, a domestic inquiry is not fatal to the employer.

The employer may still justify the dismissal before the Industrial Court by proving the misconduct there ¹.

What The Principle Means Plainly

The domestic inquiry is a procedural step, not the final word.

Even a total absence of that step leaves the door open for the employer to argue its case at the Industrial Court instead.

This case predates and lines up with Wong Yuen Hock v Hong Leong Assurance on the same point.

What It Means For A Worker

If you were dismissed with no proper domestic inquiry at all, use that fact to support your case, not to end your preparation there.

The employer still has to prove, on the evidence, that your dismissal had just cause or excuse.

That burden of proof staying with your employer is one of your strongest structural advantages going into a claim ².

Where This Fits In A Claim

This principle applies whenever a worker faces a misconduct dismissal without a proper internal hearing beforehand.

The Industrial Court still hears the full evidence, and every outcome depends on those facts, with no result promised.

Since acting on time matters regardless of the inquiry, check the deadline calculator as soon as you can.