15 August 2025

EMPLOYMENT LAW
Wrongful Dismissal – Unsatisfactory Team Performance – Termination – Double Punishment

Lim Teong Kim v Perak FC Sdn Bhd
Case No.:22/4-77/24 | Industrial Court
– see the grounds of judgment here

Facts Lim Teong Kim (the ‘Claimant’), a former professional footballer and experienced coach, entered into a two-year fixed-term contract with Perak FC Sdn Bhd (the ‘Company’) in September 2022 as Head Coach. His KPIs included achieving a 9th or higher placing in the 2023 season and progressively better results in subsequent seasons. He alleged that management interfered in technical matters, failed to provide promised resources, and undermined him through actions such as a clandestine meeting with players to solicit complaints. After receiving a final warning on 6 April 2023 for an allegedly unprofessional post-match interview, which he addressed with a public apology, he complied with a Performance Improvement Plan and achieved the stipulated targets. Nevertheless, on 24 May 2023, his employment was terminated with immediate effect, citing “unsatisfactory team performance” without further notice or opportunity to respond. Dissatisfied with his termination, the Claimant filed a claim for wrongful dismissal under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 at the Industrial Court.

Issue 1. Whether the Company had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant’s termination for “unsatisfactory team performance” was with just cause and excuse under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, and whether prior misconduct already punished could be revisited to justify dismissal.

Held In delivering the decision of the Industrial Court, Chairman, Y.A. Tuan Paramalingam A/L J. Doraisamy held that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The Court found that the sole reason in the termination letter was “unsatisfactory team performance”. Further to that, the earlier incidents of alleged misconduct had already been dealt with by issuing a final warning and requiring a public apology. The Claimant complied and did not repeat the behaviour. Revisiting these incidents to justify dismissal amounted to double punishment, which industrial jurisprudence considers inequitable and unjust. On performance, the Claimant complied with the Performance Improvement Plan by resolving player complaints, submitting required reports, and achieving the stipulated interim points target by mid-season. The Court noted the KPIs recognised the team’s rebuilding process and factors such as inadequate budget and facilities, as well as management interference materially hindered the Claimant’s ability to deliver results. The Company failed to prove that the Claimant’s performance was unsatisfactory to a degree justifying dismissal. Due to the nature of the Claimant’s employment contract being a fixed term employment contract, there can be no reinstatement under the circumstances as the said contract had come to an end by effluxion of time. As such, the Claimant was awarded compensation for the unexpired period of his fixed term employment contract. As there was still 16 months remaining unexpired under the fixed term employment contract, the Court awarded compensation amounting to RM1,040,000.00.

Zul Rafique & Partners
{15 August 2025}

Please email your details to look@zulrafique.com.my if you would like to subscribe to our Knowledge Centre.

Let’s Connect!
➭ LINKEDIN: Zul Rafique & Partners
➭ INSTAGRAM: @zrplaw