Back
2012 MarsdenLR 1372
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
DYSON MANUFACTURING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LEA YUEN POK – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 23-03-2009]
A clear admission of wrongdoing shifts the burden of proof to the admitting party, requiring them to disprove the fact admitted, thus establishing liability in civil claims.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 17, 18, and 21 - Breach of fiduciary duties - Plaintiff's claim against Defendant for secret profits received from tooling suppliers admitted during a company meeting - Defendant's explanation of admission lacked credibility - Court found admission admissible and shifted evidential burden to Defendant - Defendant failed to prove non-receipt of funds associated with bribes. (Paras 10-12, 24-33)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a UK-based manufacturing company, claimed Defendant breached fiduciary duties by receiving secret profits from suppliers. Admission made by Defendant during a meeting was undisputed. Defendant counter-claimed for trespass but lacked credible evidence.
Findings of Court:
Admission by Defendant of receiving unauthorized payments was clear, unequivocal, and admissible, shifting the burden to him to prove it was false. Court held Defendant liable for RM417,760.00 due to failure to account for deposits.
Issues: Whether the admission made by Defendant should be accepted as evidence and the adequacy of the Defendant's explanations.
Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed the admissibility of the Defendant's admission, emphasizing the evidential burden shifted to him due to the nature of his statements and lack of credible disproof.
Result: Plaintiff awarded judgement for RM417,760.00; counter-claim dismissed with costs awarded to Plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for breach of fiduciary duty (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. analysis of admissions and their admissibility (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. defendant's attempt to explain financial discrepancies (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. drawn inferences from absence of evidence (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. definition of bribe in civil law context (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. conclusion on liability and evidence assessment (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
Facts
[1] The Plaintiff ('P') was a multi-national manufacturing company based in the United Kingdom with a branch in Johor Bahru in which the Defendant ('DW1') was employed as a tooling manager until his dismissal.
[2] P's claim against D is for breach of his fiduciary duties/breach of trust in connection with secret profits that D (DW1) was alleged to have received from tooling suppliers during his employment with P. The claim arose out of an alleged admission made by DW1 during a meeting called by P's Chief Executive Officer ('PW2') at P's premises. The meeting was attended by PW1 (General Counsel of P), PW2 and DW1 where DW1 was alleged to have unequivocally admitted that he had received secret payments from the tooling suppliers of P in return for business given to them on behalf of P.
[3] The reliefs that P claimed from D are essentially these: "An account and the return of all secret profits that Lea (Defendant) has received in breach of his fiduciary duties/breach of trust, and for the same to be held on constructive trust for Dyson (Plaintiff); or alternatively Compensation for loss and damages caused by Lea's deceit.".
[4] D counter-claimed for the tort of trespass to goods and/or the tort of conversion by reason of P's employee having seized and retained his personal belongings kept in a bag after the meeting on 04 June 2009, namely that he felt trapped during the 04 June 2009 meeting.
Liability
[5] The crux of P's claim is the alleged admission made by DW1 during the meeting on 04 June 2009. Subsequent to the meeting, P addressed a letter dated 08 June 2009 to DW1 which reads as follows:
"Following your discussions with Martin Bowen last week, during which you admitted receiving undisclosed and unauthorised payments from 5 tooling manufacturers in return for placing Dyson tooling orders with them, we now request that you attend a meeting with Dyson on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 10 am, at Sofitel Palm Resort & Country Club, Jalan Persiaran Golf, Off Jalan Jumbo, 81250 Senai, Johor Bahru. This meeting is for you to provide Dyson with full and frank disclosure of all these payments and any related matters.".
[6] DW1 did not at any time during the trial deny making the above admission but in fact confirmed having done so, P contended that the admission was voluntary, clear and unequivocal as documented in the above letter. It could not be disputed that the admission was to the effect that DW1 had received secret payments that started in 2006 and ended in 2007. DW1, however, attempted to explain away the admission by saying, basically, that it was just to play along with his accusers - PW1 and PW2 - in order to cut short the meeting.
[7] P highlighted the fact that DW1's first reaction after making the admission was 5 days later vide a letter dated 09 June 2009 from his former solicitors. In this letter, DW1 claimed that the admission made during the 04 June 2009 meeting was untrue for these reasons: resignations of certain superiors of DW1; to shorten the meeting; and it was meant to play along with PW1 and PW2. Subsequently, at a meeting with P on 10 June 2009 DW1 gave another reason for making the admission, which is that he 'felt trapped' during the 04 June 2009 meeting. This was followed by a further reason which surfaced only in his affidavit dated 18 August 2009 where he said that he was under stress and pressure at the 04 June 2009 meeting. DW1 conceded that these latter allegations were not contained in his solicitor's le
