By Dr. Tahirah Manesah Abu Bakar
In my June article, Understanding Legal HR Standings for Expatriates in Malaysia (BusinessToday, 20 June 2026), I discussed Geoffrey Loh Thien Yu v. Dowell Schlumberger (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2026] and the problem of employees bringing claims against the wrong legal entity.
One of the cases referred to in that article, Chin Siang Tean v. Great Pyramid Sdn Bhd [2024] has now had its day in the High Court.
The Decision
The Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Chin’s claim against Great Pyramid, upholding the earlier Industrial Court decision. The High Court found that Great Pyramid, a recruitment firm, was not Chin’s employer and had no authority over her dismissal. Chin was also ordered to pay RM5,000 in costs.
Recalling the facts for context, Chin received one offer letter from GenScript and another from Great Pyramid, and accepted both. She signed an employment contract only with Great Pyramid, but worked directly under GenScript. Her termination letter, however, was issued by Great Pyramid.
The Industrial Court had found in 2024 that, although the contract was signed with Great Pyramid, the operational control, instructions and decision to terminate came from GenScript.
Why This Matters
This case takes the principle in Geoffrey Loh beyond the usual secondment situation, where claimants would usually rely on the reality of their day-to-day work and the courts will probe into the contract. In Chin Siang Tean, the claimant relied on the written contract and argued that nothing in it described Great Pyramid as merely a payroll vendor, yet the courts looked to the operational reality.
Either way, the employee lost.
The common thread appears to be the search for the entity that genuinely holds control and the power to dismiss, but employees can hardly be expected to identify that entity when the paperwork placed in their hands points elsewhere.
That is perhaps the most important lesson for both employers and employees.
For Employers
Where a payroll agent or employer of record is used, the contractual and operational arrangements should be clear from the outset. The employee’s contract should state plainly that the agent acts only as a payroll service provider and identify the entity that directs the employee’s work. Termination letters should identify the true employer and state clearly on whose behalf they are being issued.
These may appear to be drafting details, but when an employment relationship ends, such details can become central to the question of who is legally responsible for the dismissal.
For Employees
Employees who hold documents from more than one entity should look beyond the name appearing on the contract or payslip. Who assigns the work? Who supervises the employee? Who made the decision to dismiss? These questions may be just as important as identifying which entity pays the salary.
There is also a practical deadline that should not be overlooked. Representations under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 must be filed within 60 days of dismissal. Naming the wrong entity can therefore have serious consequences. Employees should seek advice early and consider whether another entity should also be joined.
Conclusion
Chin has one month from the decision to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, so this may not be the final word on the matter.
For now, however, the lesson from Geoffrey Loh appears to have been extended: the entity that signs the contract, pays the employee or issues the dismissal letter is not necessarily the employer in law.
