Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for ENG HAN BINA SDN BHD vs AST MACHINERY (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD & ORS; WONG LIIT KUAN & ANOR (THIRD PARTIES.......

ENG HAN BINA SDN BHD vs AST MACHINERY (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD & ORS; WONG LIIT KUAN & ANOR (THIRD PARTIES.... - Sessions Court Kuala Lumpur (2021)

: Vicarious liability does not need to be specifically pleaded. The law on pleading requires only sufficiency of fact to notify the other party of the intended case, and a fact may be reasonably particularised even if not specifically pleaded. In this case, although vicarious liability was not specifically pleaded, it was reasonably pleaded because the plaintiff''''s statement of claim and reply to the defence provided sufficient notice that D2, as a company, could be vicariously liable for acts done by its employee.Checking relevance for GMP KAISAR SECURITY (M) SDN BHD vs MOHAMAD AMIRUL AMIN MOHAMED AMIR...

Checking relevance for GMP KAISAR SECURITY (M) SDN BHD LWN. MOHAMAD AMIRUL AMIN MOHAMED AMIR...

Checking relevance for KARANJIT SINGH UPAL SARJIT SINGH LWN. NORAPIPI HAJI ABDULLAH & YANG LAIN...

Checking relevance for GRAND ENERGY E & C SDN BHD vs SHEIKH AZHAR SHAIK ABDUL RAHIM & ORS...

Checking relevance for MUHD SABRI SYAFIQ MOHAMED ROMLI LWN. NAVINKUMAR MAGENDRAN...

Checking relevance for GOH KEAN PENG vs FONG TAT YUAN & ORS...

GOH KEAN PENG vs FONG TAT YUAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Georgetown (2023)

: The Plaintiff did not plead vicarious liability, and the Plaintiff did not sufficiently particularise the plea. The court notes that the Plaintiff instead pleaded that D4 Co is liable for the words spoken by D1 as a joint tortfeasor, indicating that vicarious liability must be specifically pleaded.Checking relevance for GUO FENG TING vs TA YANG AGRICODE SDN BHD...

GUO FENG TING vs TA YANG AGRICODE SDN BHD - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru (2015)

: The court held that vicarious liability does not need to be specifically pleaded in a formal or technical manner. The plaintiff''''s pleadings in para 5 and para 7 of the statement of claim—alleging that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant''''s servant or agent in the course of employment—constituted a pleading of vicarious liability. This demonstrates that the issue of vicarious liability was properly raised even if not explicitly labeled as such.Checking relevance for OOI ENG HOCK vs MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD...

• Vicarious Liability - Specific Pleading and Proof Vicarious liability under statutory provisions like Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) must be specifically pleaded in the complaint, detailing how the accused was responsible for the offence. Mere mention of the accused being a director or responsible for the company's conduct is insufficient; explicit statements showing their personal involvement or responsibility are necessary. This principle is reinforced across multiple judgments emphasizing that liability must be proved and not merely inferred. ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1841"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1069"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1061"], ["2025 0 Supreme(HP) 976"], ["2025 0 Supreme(HP) 279"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 404"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 22"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1371"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2587"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 386"]

• Strict Construction of Section 141 Section 141 creates penal vicarious liability but must be strictly construed. The complainant must clearly specify how and in what manner the accused was responsible for the offence, particularly in cases involving companies or firms. The liability does not automatically attach by virtue of holding a certain position (e.g., director) unless the complaint explicitly states the individual's role and responsibility at the time of the offence. ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1069"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1061"], ["2025 0 Supreme(HP) 976"], ["2025 0 Supreme(HP) 279"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1371"]

• Requirement of Specific Allegations The courts consistently hold that for vicarious liability to be established, the complaint must contain detailed and specific allegations demonstrating the personal responsibility of the accused, including their active role or conduct directly linked to the offence. General or vague allegations are inadequate to fasten vicarious liability. ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1841"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1069"], ["2025 0 Supreme(HP) 976"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 404"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 386"]

• Application in Different Contexts In cases involving companies, trusts, or proprietors, liability hinges on whether the individual acted in their corporate capacity or personally. For example, a director can be vicariously liable only if the company is liable and the director’s conduct is specifically linked to the offence. Similarly, in tort law, vicarious liability is contingent upon the tortfeasor’s active involvement and responsibility, not mere association. ["2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 22"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2587"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 386"]

Analysis and ConclusionThe overarching principle across the sources is that vicarious liability, especially under criminal statutes like Section 141 of the N.I. Act, must be explicitly pleaded with detailed allegations demonstrating the individual's personal responsibility. It cannot be inferred solely from their position or association with the company or entity. Courts require a clear statement of how the accused was involved in the offence, and this requirement serves to prevent unwarranted vicarious liability. Therefore, vicarious liability must be specifically pleaded and proved; it cannot be assumed or inferred from general allegations.