On 2 December 2025, the High Court in Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v Ahmad Izzat Farhan Roselan [2026] 2 MLRH 1 (HC) allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appellate Board (SSAB) dated 29 November 2024 which had reversed the Appellant’s decision that the Respondent was not entitled to temporary disablement benefits as a result of injuries the Respondent sustained during a futsal tournament organised by the Respondent’s employer, Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB).

In coming to its decision, the High Court held that the SSAB had erred in allowing the Respondent’s application for temporary disablement benefits as the injuries sustained are not an ‘employment injury’ within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (ESSA 1969). In doing so, the High Court clarified and re-affirmed the applicable test to determine what is meant by an ‘employment injury’.

This article will consider the High Court’s decision in this case and the implications of the Employees’ Social Security (Amendment) Bill 2025 on future cases in similar circumstances.

Background Facts

The Respondent is a technician with TNB. Although the Respondent is stationed in Selangor, he was part of an operation inspecting meters in housing and industrial areas in and around Ipoh. On 15 December 2023 when the Respondent was in Ipoh, TNB organised a futsal tournament at X Park Sunway City, Ipoh. The Respondent participated on the invitation of TNB and he was the captain of the Selangor Team. 

The Respondent was injured during the said tournament when his right knee was twisted, causing him to fall forward. His injuries included, amongst others, a torn ACL (anterior cruciate ligament). The Respondent later underwent surgery and was placed on medical leave from 18 December 2023 to 30 April 2024.

On 18 April 2024, the Respondent being an insured person under the ESSA 1969 applied for temporary disablement benefits pursuant to Section 15 of the ESSA 1969.  Under Section 15 of the ESSA 1969, the Respondent had to show that the said injury was an employment injury pursuant to Section 2(6) of the ESSA 1969 which reads as follows: 

“(6) "employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment in an industry to which this Act applies;” 

On 2 May 2024, the Appellant rejected the Respondent’s application on the grounds that his application did not satisfy Section 2(6) of the ESSA 1969. The Respondent appealed to the SSAB on 10 June 2024 and the SSAB reversed the Appellant’s decision on 29 November 2024. In doing so, the SSAB held that the Respondent’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with TNB. The reasoning for this was the purported existence of an implied relationship between employer-employee which made the employee’s participation in the sports tournament as mandatory. By joining, the employee sought to impress the employer as otherwise the relationship of trust and confidence would be negatively affected. 

Subsequently, the Appellant appealed to the High Court pursuant to Section 91 of the ESSA 1969.

The Issues for Determination at the High Court

There were two issues for determination at the High Court in determining the Appellant’s appeal: 

(i)	Whether the Appellant’s appeal raises a substantial question of law pursuant to Section 91(2) of the ESSA 1969, which reads:   “An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an appellate board set up by or under this Act if it involves a substantial question of law.”

As will be seen later, the High Court determined both questions in the Appellant’s favour in allowing the appeal.

The Appellant’s submissions were two-fold:

(i)	the appeal raises a substantial question of law as there are conflicting High Court decisions on whether an employee’s injuries sustained during a sports event hosted by the employer is an ‘employment injury’;1 and

In response, the Respondent submitted that:

(i)	the appeal involves questions of fact and not a substantial question of law; and

(i)	the injury did not arise out of the Respondent’s employment as a TNB technician;

In doing so, the High Court was guided by an earlier High Court decision on a similar subject-matter in Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial lwn Gow Soo Tan [2004] 3 MELR 838 (HC) (“Gow Soo Tan”). There, the employee was a bank clerk who participated in a 100-meter run during a sports event hosted by his employer. He was injured when he ruptured his right tendon Achilles. At first instance, the employee’s claim for temporary disablement benefit was allowed by the SSAB. This was reversed on appeal by the High Court.

The High Court in Gow Soo Tan placed great emphasis on the need for the injury to be one that arose in the course of the employee’s employment. It is also noteworthy, that in reaching its decision, the High Court in Gow Soo Tan was persuaded/guided by the judgment of Lord Denning MR in R v National Insurance Commissioner, Ex Parte Michael [1977] 2 All ER 420. In that case, His Lordship had dismissed the appeal by a police officer who applied for benefits following injuries sustained during a football match. In short: “[i]t was not part of his employment to play in this game of football”. 

Thereafter, the High Court concluded that that the SSAB had erred by emphasising the implied expectations existing in an employer-employee relationship instead of the three elements laid down in Gow Soo Tan. The Respondent’s injuries did not pass the muster of Section 2(6) of the ESSA 1969. The Respondent was therefore not entitled to temporary disablement benefits.

The High Court’s decision in this case is welcomed as it reinforces the plain and ordinary meaning of Section 2(6) of the ESSA 1969, namely that for an ‘injury’ to be an ‘employment injury’ , the ‘injury’ must have genuinely arisen out of and in the course of employment. The mere fact an employer hosted, organised and encouraged participation in an event does not deem the ‘injury’ to be an employment injury save and unless there is evidence the event arose in the course of the employee’s employment relating to the industry he/she was employed in; otherwise, there would be a deluge of benefits claims arising from injuries with no nexus to once’s employment. 

The Employees’ Social Security (Amendment) Bill 2025 (“Amendment Bill”) was passed by the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) and the Dewan Negara (Senate) of the Malaysian Parliament on 2 and 18 December 2025 respectively. When the Amendment Bill comes into operation, the protection available to  insured persons under the ESSA 1969 will be expanded to include an employee’s non-employment injury. 

The Amendment Bill is part of SOCSO’s 24/7 Lindung Scheme which envisions a continuous social security regime to protect workers in Malaysia even after working hours. Once the Amendment Bill comes into force, approximately 10 million workers would benefit from enhanced social security coverage for non-employment related injuries spanning 24 hours a day and seven days a week. This is a major progression in workers’ protection under Malaysian law and addresses the gap under the existing framework.