The judgment establishes that the tort of sexual harassment is recognized in Malaysia despite the lack of explicit legal provision prior to recent amendments.

[1] The appellant and the respondent were employees of Lembaga Tabung Haji ("the company"). The appellant was the General Manager of the Risk Management Department whilst the respondent held the position of Senior Manager in that department. The respondent being the subordinate of the appellant reported directly to him.

[2] On 29 July 2009, the respondent lodged a complaint ("the complaint") to the Chief Executive Officer of the company complaining of sexual harassment by the appellant.

[3] As a result of the complaint, the company set up a committee of inquiry ("the committee"), which then conducted an inquiry from 1 September 2009 until 16 September 2009. The committee found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action to be taken against the appellant. However, the Human Resources Department of the company decided to issue a strong administrative reprimand to the appellant. The respondent applied for and was later transferred to the Legal Division of the company.

[4] Aggrieved by the complaint, which the appellant claimed to be defamatory of him, and had affected his reputation and standing as a Muslim, and as a member of the senior management of the company that led to his contract at the company not being renewed, the appellant lodged an official complaint to the company. He sought for disciplinary action to be taken against the respondent for lodging the complaint without any proof. Despite his request, the company took no disciplinary action against the respondent.

[5] The appellant then requested the company to supply him with the respondents complaint documents and the report of the committee. However the company only furnished the complaint documents.

[6] The respondent also never apologised to the appellant for the sexual harassment complaint made against him.

[7] On 9 December 2011, the appellant issued a writ against the respondent seeking, inter alia, a declaration that he had not sexually harassed the respondent and that he had been defamed by her. In addition to a public apology, the appellant sought general and aggravated damages against the respondent, interest, and costs.

[8] The respondent filed her defence and also a counterclaim against the appellant on 28 December 2011. In her defence, the respondent particularised the sexual harassment as laid down at paras 27 and 28 of this judgment and further alleged that she had suffered under the appellant. She pleaded that the allegations of defamation of the appellant were untrue. The respondent also pleaded that her allegations were upheld by their employer and that a serious disciplinary warning was issued to the appellant pursuant to the complaint.

[9] The respondent counterclaimed for damages predicated on sexual harassment. She claimed for general, aggravated and exemplary damages. She relied largely on a psychiatrists report to explain the repercussion of the harassment.

Findings Of The High Court

[10] On 24 September 2012, the High Court dismissed the appellants claim and also entered judgment for the respondent on her counterclaim. The counterclaim, as pleaded, laid down that she had suffered emotional and mental stress and trauma. As the finding of fact of the High Court of the sexual har