Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 14 of 2016

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 14 of 2016
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 14 of 2016

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 8 January, 2017 | 0

    Sexual Harassment – Whether there is a valid cause of action for a civil claim on the grounds of sexual harassment under the existing laws of Malaysia.

    Case:

    Mohd Ridzwan Abdul Razak v. Asmah Hj Mohd Nor [2016] 6 CLJ 346 FC

    Brief Facts:

    • The appellant was the General Manager of the Risk Management Department in Lembaga Tabung Haji (the “Company”) whilst the respondent held the position of senior manager in the department. The respondent reported directly to the appellant.
    • On 29 September 2009, the respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant claiming to have been sexually harrased by the appellant.
    • Upon inquiry, it was found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action to be taken against the appellant.
    • The appellant claimed the complaint to be defamatory affecting his reputation as a Muslim and a member of the senior management of the company leading to the non-renewal of his contract. The appellant sued the Complainant for defamation.
    • In the respondent’s defense and counterclaim, she particularised the sexual harrasment and further alleged that she had suffere emotional and mental stress and trauma.
    • The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim for defamation and allowed the Complainant’s claim for sexual harrasment. On appeal,the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision.
    • The current question before the Federal Court is whether there is a valid cause of action for a civil claim on the grounds of sexual harassment under the existing laws of Malaysia.

    Decision: Appeal dismissed.

    • The Federal Court held that there was a valid civil claim for sexual harassment.
    • The Federal Court is of the view that the respondents counterclaim must be affirmed based on the tort of sexual harassment.
    • Sexual harassment is a very serious misconduct and in whatever form it takes, cannot be tolerated by anyone. The recognisable hallmarks of sexual harassment are that they are unwelcomed, taking the form of verbal or even physical.
    • In this case, the ingredients of sexual harassment are present in abundance, namely the existence of a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppresive conduct targed at another person amounting to cause alarm, fear and distress to that person.
    • Hence, the vulgar and sexually explicit words complained of by the respondent clearly would be sexual harassment, emanating from verbal harassment.
    • The standard of proof in civil cases has traditionally been on a balance of probabilities, a standard that is lower than that of criminal cases of proving beyond reasonable doubt.
    • To demand corroboration will cause the harassed person to be more helpless, as most of the evidence will consist of words of the harasser to the victim.
    • While the court is wary of vindictive complaints and its debilitating effects, the filing of a complaint by a victim means that she equally suffers potential censure.
    • An unsuccesful complaint would inevitably expose her to public octracisation, creating great anxiety and discomfort for her at workplace.
    • In addition, the judges are in an advantageous position to carefully scrutinize the evidence before them and arrive at a factual finding based on the facts adduced before them.
    • Thus, in a sexual harassment case, there is no hard and fast rule that there must be corroboration, though like in any civil case the rule of evidence must be stringently upheld.

    No tags.

    admin

    https://t.me/pump_upp

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil