The case of Khoo Bee Kim v

$.$

$$Public Bank Berhad

$2$

$0$

$2$

$0$

$$involves an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Malaysia. The case revolves around the issue of whether the dismissal of the plaintiff, Khoo Bee Kim, from her employment at Public Bank Berhad was lawful and whether the bank had breached the implied term of trust and confidence in their employment contract.

The background of the case is as follows:

Khoo Bee Kim was employed by Public Bank Berhad as a senior manager in the credit risk management department. She was dismissed from her employment on the grounds of poor performance and misconduct. She appealed the decision, but the bank's internal appeal process did not result in a change of decision.

In her lawsuit, Khoo Bee Kim argued that her dismissal was unlawful and that the bank had breached the implied term of trust and confidence in their employment contract. She claimed that she had been subjected to a sham investigation and that the bank had failed to provide her with a fair and impartial hearing.

The High Court of Malaysia ruled that the dismissal of Khoo Bee Kim was lawful and that the bank had not breached the implied term of trust and confidence. However, the court did acknowledge that there were some procedural irregularities in the dismissal process, such as the lack of a proper investigation and the failure to provide Khoo Bee Kim with a fair hearing.

Khoo Bee Kim then appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal of Malaysia. The appeal was based on the following grounds:

The High Court had erred in law by failing to consider the principle of audi alteram partem

$($

the right to be heard

$)$

$$in relation to the dismissal of Khoo Bee Kim.

The High Court had erred in law by failing to consider the principle of nemo judex in causa sua

$($

no one should be a judge in their own cause

$)$

$.$

The High Court had erred in law by failing to consider the principle of nemo debet esse judex in propria causa

$($

no one should be a judge of their own cause

$)$

$.$

The Court of Appeal of Malaysia heard the appeal and delivered its judgment on May

$2$

$8$

$,$

$2$

$0$

$2$

$0$

$.$

$$The court upheld the decision of the High Court and found that there was no error in law regarding the principle of audi alteram partem or the principle of nemo judex in causa sua. However, the court did acknowledge that there was a procedural irregularity in the dismissal process, which had resulted in a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the employment contract.

The court held that the breach of the implied term of trust and confidence was not material to the outcome of the case and did not affect the lawfulness of the dismissal. However, the court did order the bank to pay Khoo Bee Kim compensation for the breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, which was equivalent to one month's salary.

Final answer: The case of Khoo Bee Kim v

$.$

$$Public Bank Berhad

$2$

$0$

$2$

$0$

$$highlights the importance of procedural fairness in employment dismissals and the implied term of trust and confidence in employment contracts. The case also demonstrates the need for employers to ensure that their dismissal processes are compliant with employment laws and regulations to avoid potential legal disputes and claims for compensation. please provide deatils of the court please provide civil no