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

2024 MarsdenLR 705

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD FAIZAL AHMAD ZAMZAMI – Appellant
Versus
TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: B-02(NCVC)(W)-102-01/2023 & B-02(NCVC)(W)-112-01/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Zulfahami Abu Bakar,Muhammad Firdaus Zakaria ,Respondent Advocate: Jeyakumar Palakrishnar,Nik Asilah Aziz

An employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful acts if they are closely connected to the employee's duties, even without the employer's knowledge of the wrongdoing.

Headnote:(A) Civil Law - Vicarious Liability - Contract for Panel Contractors Mini JKH for Regional Network Operation - The court found D1 and D2 vicariously liable for the theft of copper cables by their employee D3, as his actions were within the scope of his employment and closely connected to his role. (Paras 29, 40, 42, 46)

(B) Contributory Negligence - Plaintiff held 10% liable for contributory negligence due to lack of supervision of its employees which facilitated the theft. (Paras 16, 20)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed RM3,145,821.45 for the theft of copper cables, with D1 and D2 as maintenance contractors. D3, an employee, colluded with others to carry out the theft using forged documents. (Paras 4-12)

Findings of Court:
The court found D1 and D2 liable for the theft, ruling that D3’s actions were within the course of his employment. The Plaintiff was found 10% liable for contributory negligence. (Paras 46-52)

Issues: The main issues included whether D1 and D2 were vicariously liable for D3's actions and the extent of the Plaintiff's contributory negligence. (Paras 13, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful acts if they are closely connected to the employee's duties, regardless of the employer’s lack of knowledge of the wrongdoing. (Paras 29, 46)

Result: Appeals were allowed in part, with judgments entered against D1 and D2 for the Plaintiff's losses. (Paras 54)

JUDGMENT

S Nantha Balan JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are 2 appeals before us, namely Civil Appeal No B-02(NCVC)(W)-102-01/2023 ("Appeal 102") and Civil Appeal No B-02(NCVC)(W)-112-01/2023 ("Appeal 112"). Both appeals arise from the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner of the High Court (Shah Alam) dated 21 December 2022 (rendered after a full trial) in Suit No BA-22-NCvC-100-02/2019 ("Suit 100").

[2] The Learned Judicial Commissioner (who has since retired) did not furnish full grounds for her decision. However, the Judicial Commissioner did give broad grounds for her decision. Before us, none of the parties raised any objections as to the absence of the High Court 's full grounds. As such, both appeals proceeded on the basis of the broad grounds as found in the Record of Appeal.

Parties

[3] The Appellant in Appeal 112 (Respondent in Appeal 102) is Telekom Malaysia Berhad ("Plaintiff"). The Appellant in Appeal 102 is Ahmad Faizal bin Ahmad Zamzami (described below as the Sixth Defendant - D6). For completeness, it is necessary to identify all the Defendants in Suit 100. They are;

1. Mohd Shukor Bin Ahmad (No. K/P: 701021-10-6413) (Berniaga Sebagai Triple A Communication) (First Defendant - "D1")

2. Syukur Communication Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 1149090-K) (Second Defendant - "D2")

3. Kaharuddin Bin Yusoff (No. K/P: 770424-08-7287) (Third Defendant - "D3")

4. Fariul Fadzil Bin Abdul Rahim (No. K/P: 781212-13-5009) (Fourth Defendant - "D4")

5. Mohd Saleh Bin Isthnin (No. K/P: 760308-04-5419) (Fifth Defendant - "D5")

6. Ahmad Faizal Bin Ahmad Zamzami (No. K/P: 850111-14-5087) (Sixth Defendant - "D6")

The Claim

[4] Essentially, the Plaintiff's main claim in Suit 100 was for restitution in the sum of RM3,145,821.45 being the loss incurred due to theft of copper cables from their store in Cheras, Kuala Lumpur. D1 and D2 are the Plaintiff's maintenance and repair contractors. D3 was an employee of D1 and D2. Specifically, D3 was employed by D1 and D2 as a Maintenance Supervisor. The theft of copper cables was carried out through a nefarious scheme involving D3 (qua employee and as agent of D1 and D2) and the Plaintiff's employees, namely D4, D5 and D6. The Plaintiff holds D1 and D2 vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of D3 which resulted in the loss of copper cables valued at RM3,145,821.45. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Vicarious liability" means "The imposition of liability on one person for the actionable conduct of another, based solely on a relationship between the two persons. Indirect or imputed legal responsibility for acts of another; for example, the liability of an employer for the acts of an employee, or, a principal for torts and contracts of an agent."

[5] The Plaintiff also contends that D1 and D2 are liable under contract, to indemnify them for loss and damage caused by the wrongful acts of D3 who acted in collaboration with the Plaintiff's said employees. In their Defence, D1 and D2 took the position that they are not liable for D3's wrongful conduct. It was contended that D3 acted on a frolic of his own and was not authorised by D1 and/or D2 to do what he did.

The Contract

[6] By an agreement known as Contract for Panel Contractors Mini JKH for Regional Network Operation (RNO) dated 21 January 2010 ("the Contract") made between the Plaintiff and D1's business entity, Triple A Communication, D1 agreed to execute works required by the Plaintiff in accordance to the terms therein stated. Subsequently, a Novation Agreement dated 8 December 2016 was entered between the Plaintiff, D1 and D2 whereby D1 agreed to transfer all of its rights, interests, benefits, duties, liabilities and obligations under the Contract to D2, while D2 agreed to bound by all terms, conditions and covenants to observed under the said Contract.

Discovery Of Theft

[7] On 9 March 2017, D4 lodged a complaint to the Plaintiff's ENZ Maluri Manager, Abdul Majid bin Mohamed Yusop, informing him of his findings that 25 Mainte


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 Back to top