Most people think that even if they have provided false information in an interview, they are home free the moment they are hired.
Unfortunately for those people, what happens during an interview can come back to haunt you.
A recent Malaysian Industrial Court decision (Award No. 862 of 2026) confirmed exactly that. The Court held that an employee who deliberately failed to disclose important information during his interview had been lawfully dismissed once the truth came to light.
So does this mean every exaggeration on your CV can get you fired?
Possibly but not necessarily.
Let’s look at what Malaysian employment law actually says. If you’re looking for a complete guide to Malaysian employment law, visit Employment Law Malaysia: The Complete Guide for Employees and Employers (2026)
The Facts
The employee was employed as a Legal Assistant by a law firm.
Before joining the firm, he had previously lodged a disciplinary complaint against his former pupil master with the Bar Council’s Disciplinary Board.
During the interview, the firm’s senior partner specifically asked about his relationship with his previous employers because honesty and loyalty were considered fundamental values of the firm.
The employee did not disclose that disciplinary complaint.
More than a year later, the employer only discovered its existence after the employee requested leave to attend the disciplinary proceedings.
The firm investigated the matter, asked the employee to explain himself, and eventually dismissed him.
The employee challenged the dismissal in the Industrial Court, arguing that he had been dismissed without just cause.
Why Was the Non-Disclosure So Serious?
One important lesson from this case is that not every omission during an interview justifies dismissal.
The Industrial Court focused on whether the undisclosed information was material.
In other words, would the information have affected the employer’s hiring decision?
The Court found that it would.
The employer had repeatedly emphasised honesty during the interview and had specifically questioned the employee about his relationship with previous employers.
The Court accepted that the disciplinary complaint against the former pupil master was highly relevant because it directly contradicted the impression the employee had given during the interview.
The Court Preferred the Employer’s Version
Employment disputes often come down to credibility.
Here, the employee argued that he had generally been transparent and that he merely chose not to mention the disciplinary complaint.
However, the Industrial Court found that the employer’s evidence was more believable.
One important factor was the employee’s own explanation letter written shortly after the incident.
In that letter, he effectively admitted that he had failed to disclose the information and apologised to the employer while asking for leniency.
Only later, during the Industrial Court proceedings, did he allege that the employer had victimised him.
The Court placed greater weight on the contemporaneous documents rather than his later version of events.
This is a common approach taken by Malaysian courts.
Documents created at the time an incident occurs are often considered far more reliable than explanations given years later during litigation.
Can Employers Dismiss Employees for Dishonesty During Recruitment?
Yes but only if certain conditions are satisfied.
Generally speaking, an employer would need to show that:
- the employee made a false representation or deliberately concealed important information;
- the undisclosed information was material to the hiring decision;
- trust and confidence between employer and employee had been damaged; and
- dismissal was a proportionate response in the circumstances.
Simply forgetting to mention something insignificant is very different from intentionally concealing information that goes to the heart of the employer’s decision to hire you.
Nevertheless, every case depends on its own facts.
If you’re unsure whether a dismissal for alleged dishonesty is legally justified or you’re an employer dealing with a similar situation, feel free to reach out.
What Counts as Material Information?
There is no fixed list.
Whether something is “material” depends on the nature of the job and the circumstances.
Examples may include:
- qualifications or professional licences;
- previous dismissals for misconduct;
- criminal convictions where relevant to the role;
- disciplinary proceedings affecting professional practice;
- falsified employment history; or
- false statements about previous employment.
The more closely the information relates to trust, integrity or the essential requirements of the role, the more likely it is to be considered material.
Does an Employer Need to Hold a Domestic Inquiry?
Interestingly, the employee also argued that the dismissal was unfair because no domestic inquiry was conducted.
The Industrial Court rejected this argument.
The Court held that the employee had been informed of the allegation, was given an opportunity to explain himself in writing, and later had a full opportunity to present his case before the Industrial Court.
On those facts, the absence of a domestic inquiry did not make the dismissal unlawful.
This does not mean employers can safely skip domestic inquiries in every case.
Whether a domestic inquiry is necessary depends on the nature of the alleged misconduct, the employer’s disciplinary procedures, and the surrounding circumstances.
Practical Lessons for Employees
If you’re attending a job interview, remember that honesty is usually the safest approach.
You are not expected to volunteer every detail of your personal history.
However, if an employer asks a direct question about matters that are clearly relevant to your employment, deliberately giving a misleading answer or intentionally concealing important information can have serious consequences if discovered later.
Receiving an offer letter does not erase what happened during the recruitment process.
Practical Lessons for Employers
Employers should also take away several lessons from this decision.
If honesty is genuinely important for a role, ask clear and specific questions during the interview.
Document the candidate’s responses wherever possible.
If concerns arise later, avoid rushing to dismiss the employee immediately. Instead:
- investigate the allegation properly;
- give the employee an opportunity to explain;
- consider whether the information was genuinely material; and
- assess whether dismissal is a proportionate disciplinary response.
A dismissal will ultimately be judged by whether there was just cause or excuse, not simply because the employer has lost confidence in the employee.
Final Thoughts
This Industrial Court award demonstrates that what happens during a job interview does not simply disappear once employment begins.
Where an employee deliberately conceals material information to secure employment, and that dishonesty later destroys the trust essential to the employment relationship, dismissal may be legally justified.
At the same time, this should not be taken to mean that every inaccurate statement made during recruitment automatically warrants termination. Malaysian employment law looks carefully at the facts of each case, including the importance of the undisclosed information and whether the employer acted fairly throughout the disciplinary process.
Looking for a broader guide to Malaysian employment law? Read Employment Law Malaysia: The Complete Guide for Employees and Employers (2026), where I explain employee rights, misconduct, dismissals, domestic inquiries, Industrial Court claims and many other practical employment issues in plain English.
