Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ:

Introduction

[1] The issue before the Federal Court turned on what is meant by "joint liability" as opposed to "joint and several liability". In the instant appeal, judgment was obtained against the appellant here, and one other, premised on their personal liability as directors for the failure of the employer company to make Employment Provident Fund payments to its employees. The order of the High Court, the Court of first instance, did not expressly specify the type of liability imposed upon two debtors, one of whom is the appellant. The provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, more particularly s 46, expressly provides for the joint and several liability of directors of an employer company, where there is a failure to make the requisite employer's contribution.

[2] The issue before the courts below was the nature of the liability against each of the two debtors, given that the order of the trial Court adjudging liability against them did not expressly specify whether each debtor was liable for the full quantum or not. Both the courts below were of the view that the failure to include the phrase "jointly and severally" in a Court order would