SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 MarsdenLR 2183

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
KUMPULAN WANG PERSARAAN (DIPERBADANKAN) – Appellant
Versus
MERIDIAN ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: D5-22-1457-2007]



Employers are vicariously liable for employees' wrongful acts committed within the scope of employment, regardless of whether those acts are criminal or contrary to direct instructions, especially where insufficient internal controls are in place.

Headnote:(A) Vicarious Liability - Investment Management Agreement - The plaintiff claims against the defendant, an investment manager, for vicarious liability due to employee misconduct resulting in financial loss. The court finds the defendant liable as the employee's actions fell within employment scope. (Paragraphs 1, 4, 8, 9)

(B) Duty of Care - The court emphasized the heightened responsibility of professional fund managers to maintain internal checks to protect clients' interests. The absence of such measures contributed to the incident. (Paragraphs 4, 8)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a body corporate under the Retirement Fund Act, suffered losses amounting to RM7,254,050.42 due to unauthorized actions by a defendant's employee, who misappropriated funds for personal trading. The defenses included denial of liability based on employer's control over employees. (Paragraphs 2, 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court established the defendant's liability, citing a lack of internal checks leading to employee misconduct, affirming that they must indemnify the plaintiff for the losses incurred. (Paragraphs 8, 9, 11)

Issues: The primary issues involved whether the defendant could assert a lack of responsibility for employee conduct and the existence of contributory negligence regarding the custodian’s role. (Paragraphs 4, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that vicarious liability applies even where an employee's actions are criminal, emphasizing that the employer bears the duty to safeguard client funds. The defendant's argument regarding employee conduct being beyond their control was rejected based on the need for proper checks. (Paragraphs 8, 9)

Result: Plaintiff's claim allowed; defendant to pay RM7,254,050.42 with interest and costs. (Paragraphs 11, 12)

Table of Content
1. agreed facts establish context and liability. (Para 2 , 4)
2. defendant's liability contested and custodial issues raised. (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. absence of internal checks led to liability findings. (Para 7 , 8)
4. awarding of pre-judgment interest justified. (Para 9 , 10)
5. plaintiff's claim granted, defendant ordered to pay. (Para 11)

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant (investment manager) for vicarious liability for the acts of the employee which resulted in loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's prayers read as follows:

"Wherefore, the plaintiff claims:

a. RM7,254,050. 42 ("the said sum");

b. Interest on the said sum from the date of the misappropriation of the said sum to the date of judgment at such rate as may be determined;

c. An order that the defendant do account for all or any profits that it has obtained by reason of the breach of the agreement or the breach of his duty as trustee of the said sum;

d. General damages for breach of the terms of the Investment Management Agreement;

e. General damages for breach of duty as a trustee;

f. Interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment is satisfied in respect of all monies ordered to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff;

g. Costs; and

h. Further and/or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant".

[2] It must be noted that the agreed facts with the admissions therein show the material facts relating to quantum and liability are not in dispute save to the defence to the claim. The Statement of Agreed facts in encl 29 reads as follows:

"1. The plaintiff is a body corporate established under the Retirement Fund Act 2007 .

2. The defendant is a professional fund management company registered in Malaysia.

3. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an Investment Management Agreement dated 27 November 2001 ("the agreement").

4. Pursuant to the agreement and subject to the terms and conditions thereunder, the defendant agreed to provide professional investment advice and management services over the investment portfolio owned by the plaintiff ("the plaintiff's fund").

5. Pursuant to the agreement and subject to the terms and conditions thereunder, Arab Malaysian Trustee Berhad ("AM Trustee Bhd") was appointed as the custodian for the plaintiff's fund.

6. The total amount of the plaintiff's fund was RM30,000,000.

7. On 29 August 2005, the defendant's Managing Director (Mr Ng Tiong Yee) made a police report, inter alia, as follows:

(1) that the defendant's employee, one Mr Ong Kheng Hoe ("the said employee") had committed a criminal offence;

(2) that the said employee had dealt with about RM28 million belonging to two (2) clients, ie Malaysian Assurance Alliance Berhad ("MAA") and the plaintiff; and

(3) that the employee had confessed to the following:

a) that he had remitted the defendant's client's monies totalling RM28 million (belonging to MAA and the plaintiff) to his own trading account at TA Futures;

(b) that he had forged the defendant's managing director's signature by cutting and pasting and using the defendant company's letterhead to transfer the funds from AM Trustee; and

(c) that he had lost the bulk of the money (around RM25 million) in the futures market though OKACHI (crude oil) and TA Futures for palm oil trading.

8. By way of letter dated 30 August 2005, the defendant informed the plaintiff in writing, inter alia, as follows:

(1) that the defendant had made a police report on 29 August 2005 regarding misappropriation of its client's funds; and

(2) that the said misappropriation will have some adverse effect on the plaintiff's fund

9. By way of letter dated 6 September 2005, the defendant informed the plaintiff in writing, inter alia, as follows:

(1) that the defendant had discovered some financial misfeasance committed against the defendant;

(2) that sometime in mid-August, the defendant had discovered that deposits had been placed with Amanah Short Deposits without proper authoris

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top