Lee Ee Chai v Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): Lee Ee Chai

Respondent(s): Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
• YA Datin Paduka Evrol Mariette Peters

• The appellant, a senior manager, was dismissed by the respondent for allegedly stealing or taking company property without permission during an office relocation.
• The Industrial Court found that the respondent failed to prove dishonest intention and held that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, ordering reinstatement and back wages.
• The High Court subsequently allowed the respondent’s appeal and set aside the Industrial Court’s award, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

• Whether the disciplinary charge was fundamentally vague and ambiguous for conflating "stealing" (a dishonest act) with "taking without permission" (a potentially neutral act).
• Whether the Industrial Court erred in law by imposing an unduly onerous burden of proof on the respondent by referencing elements of criminal theft under the Penal Code.
• Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the Industrial Court’s findings of fact and its exercise of discretion under section 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the charge was inherently ambiguous as it conflated two distinct forms of misconduct, thereby prejudicing the appellant’s ability to defend himself.
• The Court clarified that the Industrial Court did not misdirect itself; referencing the Penal Code was a legitimate analytical tool to assess the elements of dishonesty under the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), not an application of the criminal standard.
• The Court held that the High Court erred by substituting its own factual findings for those of the Industrial Court and failing to respect the Industrial Court's mandate to decide cases based on equity, good conscience, and substantial merits.