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

2015 MarsdenLR 1866

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LEE WOON JENG – Appellant
Versus
EXCEL CHAMP AUTOMOBILE SDN BHD – Respondent


Table of Content
1. employer's liability for employee misconduct. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for and against vicarious liability. (Para 16 , 18)
3. determining scope of employment and vicarious liability. (Para 20 , 21)
4. application of employment duties to wrongful acts. (Para 48 , 54)
Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal J:

Introduction

[1] This appeal rests on the question of whether there ought to be imposition of liability on the employer for the wrongs of its employee. This raises a much larger question - in what circumstances should an employer be held liable for an intentional wrong committed by his employee in circumstances where no fault can be attributed to the employer?

[2] This question is usually understood in most common law jurisdictions as a question about vicarious liability, the development of which has been fashioned by judges with considerable impact on employment relationships and others connected with it. Such actions can also be considered on the principle of non-delegable duty (see Dalton v. Angus [1881] 6 App Cas 740 and Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v. English [1938] AC 57) where direct liability is imposed as opposed to derivative liability. The latter case is not in is

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top