Back
2023 MarsdenLR 266
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DEEPA GOVINDARAJOO – Appellant
Versus
SAFFRON INFO SYSTEMS SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12BNCVC-182-12-2022]
The court affirmed that misappropriation of employer assets by an employee constitutes a breach of duty, leading to liability for damages incurred by the employer.
Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Misappropriation of Assets - The Appellant, a former employee, took possession of two hard discs containing sensitive information belonging to the Respondents without consent. The Sessions Court found the Appellant liable for misappropriation and ordered the return of assets and payment of damages. (Paras 4, 5, 11, 12, 19)
(B) Burden of Proof - The Respondents successfully proved their claim for damages on a balance of probabilities, demonstrating that the Appellant's actions caused operational disruption and incurred costs. (Paras 6, 16)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant resigned but retained possession of the Respondents' hard discs containing vital information, despite requests for their return. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The Appellant misappropriated the assets and failed to return them post-resignation; her claims regarding unpaid salary were deemed untenable. (Paras 5, 11)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Appellant's possession of the hard discs was lawful and whether the Respondents proved their damages. (Paras 6, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Appellant's refusal to return the hard discs constituted misappropriation, and her claims regarding payment were not sufficient to justify her actions. (Paras 12, 19)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs and orders for immediate return of the hard discs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. misappropriation of employer's assets by employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. orders granted by sessions court for asset return. (Para 4) |
| 3. appellant's admission of asset possession. (Para 5) |
| 4. appellant's arguments regarding damages and evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and appellant's conduct. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. court's reasoning on burden of proof and evidence assessment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of sessions court's decision. (Para 19) |
The Sessions Court's Decision
[1] This is a case that concerned claims where a former employee had taken possession without consent and approval, of information and data that belonged to the employers. The Appellant was employed by the 1st respondent as the Group Human Resources, Finance and Administration Executive on 1 October 2018. She was reassigned to the 2nd respondent on 17 June 2019 as Group Administration and Liaison Officer effective 1 July 2019.
[2] However, the Appellant had refused to sign the reassignment letter though she had indicated her acceptance verbally and via email. On 24 July 2019 the Appellant issued a resignation letter dated 22 July 2019 which was to be effective from 23 July 2019.
[3] Until the trial, the Appellant had refused to return the Respondents' assets namely two hard discs which contained important, personal and sensitive information of the Respondents.
[4] After a full trial, the Sessions Court allowed the Respondents' claim and granted the following orders:
(a) a declaration that the Appellant had misappropriated the Respondents' assets without lawful permission and authority;
(b) that the Appellant immediately returns the said assets in good condition with all the information and data intact;
(c) that the Appellant issues a letter of undertaking that the information and data in the said assets would not be exposed or utilised by the Appellant and or its agents/servants in any way whatsoever, failing which the Appellant was to pay damages to the Respondents;
(d) that the Appellant immediately pays to the Respondent special damages in the amount of RM124,000.00 for additional employees to recreate the financial data;
(e) interests of 5% per annum on the judgment sum until full and final settlement;
(f) costs of RM10,000.00.
[5] The Sessions Court found the following:
(a) The Appellant did not deny that she had appropriated the said assets and had still kept them in her possession in spite of repeated requests for their return by the Respondents - in her pleadings as well as during trial. According to the Appellant, she was not paid one month's salary by the Respondents;
(b) The Appellant had misappropriated the said assets as she had not returned them to the Respondents even after her resignation from the 2nd respondent;
(c) The Appellant's contentions that she was not an employee of the 2nd respondent and neither was she paid salary were untenable based on the evidence including the salary slips issued by the 2nd respondent to the Appellant;
(d) As the Appellant's claim for the alleged unpaid salary was ongoing at the Industrial Court, she should allow the matter to be adjudicated by the Industrial Court and not hold the said assets to ransom;
(e) The Appellant had refused the Respondents' offer of one-month salary payment for the return of the said assets that showed mala fide on the part of the Appellant;
(f) The Appellant's statement that the hard disc was only to be held temporarily by Ankita Sardar did not lessen her culpability as it was without the consent and permission of the Respondents;
(g) The Appellant had control and authority over Ankita Sardar who was not called as a witness at trial; and
(h) As a result of the Appellant's conduct, the Respondents had to incur expenses to employ new/additional staff to recreate the information and data for their daily operation to reconcile the accounts, information, data and personal files as the hard disc and the b
