Noradura Hamzah JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction

[1]This is an appeal by the Defendant (“Appellant”) against the decision of the Sessions Court delivered on 16.12.2024, after a full trial, allowing the Plaintiff’s (“Respondent’s”) claim for RM111,806.45 with interest at 5% from the date of judgment until full settlement and costs of RM5,000.00 and dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaim with cost of RM5,000.00.

[2]The appeal is against the entirety of that decision.

[3]For convenience, this Court will refer to the parties as they were at the trial Court.

Background

[4]The material facts are largely undisputed.

[5]The plaintiff operates an airline and runs a cadet pilot training scheme. The defendant applied for and was selected to undergo the programme. A Conditional Letter of Offer dated 18.4.2011 and an Agreement for Cadet Pilot Training dated 11.5.2011 were executed between the parties.

[6]Under these arrangements, the plaintiff would arrange and bear the cost of the cadet training and subsequently provide Type Rating Training to enable the defendant to operate the plaintiff’s Airbus A320 aircraft. In return, the defendant agreed, inter alia, to –

(a)accept employment as co-pilot with the plaintiff upon successful completion of training; and

(b)be bonded to serve the plaintiff for a period of ten years, failing which he would pay a bonded sum of RM100,000.00.

[7]The Defendant successfully completed the cadet training at his own expenses and was issued with a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL) in by Transport Canada on 13 July 2012. He was then offered and accepted employment as a co-pilot with effect from 31.7.2012.

[8]The evidence shows that upon joining the plaintiff, the defendant underwent further simulator and flight checks in Malaysia. These trainings were organised and paid for by the Plaintiff. The Type Rating Training was provided through Asian Aviation Centre of Excellence Sdn Bhd (“AACE”) at a cost of RM99,821.88, as evidenced by Exhibit P-11.

[9]Further, on 7.11.2012 the Department of Civil Aviation Malaysia (DCA) officially endorsed the A320 type rating on the Defendant’s pilot licence (No. 0024), confirming that he had passed the relevant checks and was qualified to operate the A320 aircraft.

[10]On 8.9.2015, while still within the bonded period, the Defendant tendered his resignation via email, stating his last day of service as 8.10.2015. The plaintiff accepted the resignation but demanded –

(a)RM11,806.45 being salary in lieu of the full three-month notice; and

(b)the bonded sum of RM100,000.00.

[11]The Defendant did not pay and after a demand letter dated 28.7.2017, the plaintiff commenced the Sessions Court action in 2021 to recover the said sums. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging, among others, failure of consideration, misrepresentation and breach of contract by the plaintiff.

[12]The learned SCJ found, in essence, that –

(a)the Plaintiff had fulfilled its obligations under the training agreement, including providing the necessary training and type rating;

(b)the Defendant had resigned during the bonded period and without giving three months’ notice;

(c)the bond clause and bonded sum of RM100,000.00 constituted an enforceable genuine pre-estimate of loss under Section 75Contracts Act 1950Act 136]; and

(d)the Defendant’s counterclaim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 [Act 254] and in any event not made out on the evidence.

[13]The learned Judge accordingly allowed the plaintiff’s claim in full and dismissed the counterclaim.

Analysis

[14]This being an appeal from a decision after a full trial, the well- established principle is that an appellate court will be slow to interfere with the trial court’s findings of fact, particularly those based on the credibility of witnesses, unless such findings are shown to be plainly wrong, made on a misapprehension of the evidence, or unsupported by the evidence as a whole (see : UEM Group Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v Lee Ing Ch