JUDGMENT

Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal J:

Introduction

[1] This appeal rests on the question of whether there ought to be imposition of liability on the employer for the wrongs of its employee. This raises a much larger question - in what circumstances should an employer be held liable for an intentional wrong committed by his employee in circumstances where no fault can be attributed to the employer?

[2] This question is usually understood in most common law jurisdictions as a question about vicarious liability, the development of which has been fashioned by judges with considerable impact on employment relationships and others connected with it. Such actions can also be considered on the principle of non-delegable duty (see Dalton v. Angus [1881] 6 App Cas 740 and Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v. English [1938] AC 57) where direct liability is imposed as opposed to derivative liability. The latter case is not in issue here.

[3] The appellant in this case was not successful in the Magistrates Court at Kuala Lumpur in his attempt to impose vicarious liability on an employer whose employee had caused him financial harm. He now appeals to this Court. For convenience, the parties will