{
  "id": 14950809,
  "title": "NUBE kalah rayuan perintah henti keluar kenyataan, berpiket",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/16/nube-kalah-rayuan-perintah-henti-keluar-kenyataan-berpiket",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-16T11:58:04.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Malaysia Today",
    "slug": "free-malaysia-today",
    "url": "https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2026/10/16/nube-kalah-rayuan-perintah-henti-keluar-kenyataan-berpiket"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Malaysia's High Court dismissed the National Union of Bank Workers (NUBE) request for a cease and desist order, barring them from issuing public statements or holding protests due to a dispute with Maybank. High Court judge Norliza Othman rejected the appeal, citing a cost of RM10,000. Norliza stated that the order issued by the Company Court was not an injunction as issued by a civil court under the Specific Relief Act 1950. The Court does not have jurisdiction to issue such an injunction, she explained. Instead, it was an interim order under Section 28 and Section 29(g) of the Companies Act 1967 to maintain status quo, prevent escalation of tension, and ensure the smooth conduct of proceedings. It also aimed to avoid a \"trial by media\" while the dispute was ongoing and preserve the integrity of the Company Court proceedings. Norliza agreed that rejecting NUBE's request to prevent them from asserting their right to free speech under Article 10 of the Constitution could be likened to having a \"tiger without oil.\" She also rejected NUBE's argument that the order preceded the resolution of the dispute, stressing it was merely an interim order and no findings were made on the merits of the claim against Maybank. On the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Constitution, Norliza stated that it is not absolute and can be limited. She agreed that the protest and gathering by the union touched on the core issue being heard by the Company Court, risking prejudicing the proceedings. This order was necessary to ensure the dispute could be heard and decided fairly, she explained. The dispute arose from a sexual harassment complaint filed by a former bank employee against a colleague. Although the matter was resolved in 2021, it resurfaced in 2024 during a separate complaint process, sparking public campaigns and protests by NUBE. The union continued its actions after the dispute was referred to the Company Court, prompting Maybank to seek interim relief under Section 29(g) and Section 30 of the relevant Act. Testifying for Maybank were Janice Anne Leo, Chong Jen Hui, and Adrienne Sena, while Ravi Nekoo and Arvinkumar Mohan appeared for NUBE.",
  "summary": "Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur putuskan Mahkamah Perusahaan berkuasa sekat tindakan kesatuan sekerja itu untuk lindungi prosiding pertikaian dengan bank.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Free Malaysia Today",
        "title": "NUBE kalah rayuan perintah henti keluar kenyataan, berpiket",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/16/nube-kalah-rayuan-perintah-henti-keluar-kenyataan-berpiket-14951575",
        "published": "2026-10-16T11:58:04.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}