Case Background & Strategy

Honesty at the hiring stage is not a courtesy — it is a condition of the employment relationship itself. In a 2026 award, the Industrial Court of Malaysia confirmed that an employee who deliberately conceals material information to secure a job can be lawfully dismissed once that concealment comes to light, even where the person is engaged on a fixed-term contract. NG, Zainurul, Seke & Khoo successfully defended the employer in this matter, and the decision offers a clear roadmap for employers facing similar facts.

What was the dispute about?

The employee was a professional hire recruited after a face-to-face interview with a senior member of the organisation. During that interview he was asked, as candidates routinely are, about his relationship with his previous employers and his reasons for leaving them. He represented that his relationship with his former principal had been good and that he had moved on simply to broaden his experience.

The reality was materially different. The relationship had in fact been strained to the point that the employee had lodged a formal disciplinary complaint against his former principal before a professional disciplinary body. He did not mention this at any point during the interview. The employer only discovered it months into the employment, when the employee requested time off to attend the disciplinary hearing arising from his own complaint.

Why did the employer treat this as serious misconduct?

For a professional services organisation, trust and candour are the foundation of the working relationship. The employer’s position was that the undisclosed complaint was not a minor omission but information that went to the heart of the hiring decision. Had the true state of the relationship — and the existence of a live disciplinary complaint — been disclosed at interview, the candidate would, on the evidence, not have been hired. The concealment therefore secured an advantage the employee would not otherwise have obtained.

How did the Industrial Court analyse the evidence?

The Court preferred the employer’s version of events, and the decisive factor was the employee’s own contemporaneous explanation letter. In that letter the employee admitted the non-disclosure, spoke positively about his time with the organisation, and apologised — a document that sat awkwardly against the more combative case he later advanced. The Court applied the well-established principle that contemporaneous documents created at the time of the events are a more reliable guide to the truth than a witness’s later reconstruction.

The Court also rejected the argument that disclosing the complaint would merely have amounted to speaking badly of a former employer. There is a difference, the Court observed, between disparaging someone and stating a verifiable fact. The existence of a disciplinary complaint is a fact that can be objectively proven regardless of its outcome, and a professional should understand that distinction. By presenting the relationship as good while withholding the complaint, the employee crossed from discretion into concealment.

Did the lack of a formal domestic inquiry sink the employer’s case?

No. The employee argued that the absence of a full domestic inquiry breached natural justice. The Court reaffirmed settled law: a defective or absent domestic inquiry is not fatal, because the hearing before the Industrial Court is a fresh hearing (a hearing de novo) at which both parties lead their evidence in full. The employee had been told what the concern was and given a written opportunity to explain himself before dismissal, and he had a full opportunity to be heard before the Court.

What was the outcome?

The Court held that the employer had proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the dismissal was carried out with just cause or excuse. The claim was dismissed.

Frequently asked questions

Is non-disclosure at a job interview a valid reason for dismissal in Malaysia?

It can be. Where the withheld information is material — meaning it would have affected the decision to hire — and the employer discovers it during employment, dismissal may amount to just cause or excuse. The key is materiality and the resulting breakdown of trust.

Does an employer need to hold a domestic inquiry before dismissing for this kind of misconduct?

A domestic inquiry is good practice, but Malaysian law treats a defective or missing inquiry as an irregularity that can be cured by the fresh hearing before the Industrial Court, provided the employee was given a fair opportunity to explain.

Why did the employee’s own letter matter so much?

Because it was written at the time of the events. Courts give significant weight to contemporaneous documents over later testimony, especially where the testimony is at odds with what the person wrote earlier.

Key takeaway for employers

Candour at recruitment is a material term of employment. When an employee deliberately suppresses information that would have changed the hiring decision, dismissal on discovery can constitute just cause or excuse. Protect your position by asking clear interview questions, keeping records, and giving the employee a documented written opportunity to explain before any decision is made.