PB SECURITIES vs RAJA SAFIAH RAJA LOPE AHMAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 969

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PB SECURITIES – Appellant
Versus
RAJA SAFIAH RAJA LOPE AHMAD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. employment terms and commission structure. (Para 1)
2. plaintiff's employment terms and bonus scheme. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. claims for unpaid wages and commissions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. correct analysis of plaintiff's employment entitlements. (Para 9 , 10)
5. arguments regarding entitlement and commission calculations. (Para 12)
6. defendant's argument against the plaintiff's entitlement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. court's reasoning on the calculation of incentive bonus. (Para 17 , 19)
8. court's reasoning on the calculation of commissions. (Para 18)
9. liability for contras and indemnity clauses. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

[1] There were two appeals before us involving the parties herein which by consent were heard simultaneously. The two appeals arose from the decision of the High Court in suit no. D1-22-1667- 1998 filed by Raja Safiah binti Raja Lope Ahmad against PB Securities Sdn Bhd. The appeal record filed in appeal no. W-02- 3382-2010 (the appeal filed by PB Securities Sdn Bhd) was the primary record referred to during the appeal. For the purposes of this judgment Raja Safiah will be referred to as the 'plaintiff' and PB Securities Sdn Bhd will be referred to as the 'd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 969

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPB SECURITIES – AppellantVersusRAJA SAFIAH RAJA LOPE AHMAD – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PB SECURITIES – Appellant
Versus
RAJA SAFIAH RAJA LOPE AHMAD – Respondent