HUBLINE BHD v. INTAN WAZLIN AB WAHAB & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
LIM CHONG FONG JCA
NOORIN BADARUDDIN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-01(A)-128-03-2021 & W-01(A)-142-03-2021]
21 OCTOBER 2025
[2025] CLJ JT (15)

Abstract – Despite its equitable mandate under s. 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('Act'), the Industrial Court cannot override or ignore the fundamental company law principle of separate legal personality to impose liability on a non-employer company. The Industrial Court's power to add/substitute parties, under s. 29(a) of the Act, must be exercised in line with the said principle. To allow joinder or substitution of a non-employer corporate entity, there must be a reasonable factual or legal nexus between the proposed joinee and the dispute pending before the Industrial Court. The proposed joinee must also be among the parties who is liable in law for the termination of employment. Piercing the corporate veil is only justified in special cases, and requires clear and compelling grounds.

COURTS: Industrial Court – Powers – Power to add/substitute parties – Application to bring in or replace non-employer corporate entity in proceedings – Overlap in directors, registered address, company secretaries or managerial personnel – Whether Industrial Court, guided by equitable mandate, can override/ignore separate legal personality doctrine under company law and impose liability on non-employer company – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 29(a) & 30(5)

LABOUR LAW: Procedure – Substitution/joinder – Application to bring in or replace non-employer corporate entity in proceedings – Overlap in directors, registered address, company secretaries or managerial personnel – Criterion and required test – Whether proposed additional party played any role in dispute – Whether there was reasonable factual/legal nexus to dispute – Whether proposed party liable in law for termination –Whether parties to proceedings before Industrial Court may use s. 29(a) of Industrial Relations Act 1967 to bring in/replace non-employer corporate entity in proceedings – Whether more expansive reading of joinder and substitution, adopted in case laws, stretched statutory interpretation and core principles of corporate law beyond statutorily authorised – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(a)

COMPANY LAW: Separate legal entity – Piercing of corporate veil – Power of Industrial Court to add or substitute parties – Application to bring in or replace non-employer corporate entity in proceedings – Overlap in directors, registered address, company secretaries or managerial personnel – Whether parties to proceedings before Industrial Court may use s. 29(a) of Industrial Relations Act 1967 to bring in/replace non-employer corporate entity in proceedings – Whether Industrial Court can override/ignore separate legal personality doctrine under company law – Salomon v. A Salomon & Co Ltd

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Appeal – Challenge against awards of Industrial Court – Application to bring in or replace non-employer corporate entity in proceedings – Overlap in directors, registered address, company secretaries or managerial personnel – Industrial Court ordered substitution and joinder – High Court dismissed applications for judicial review – Whether Industrial Court erred in allowing substitution and joinder – Whether awards ought to be quashed