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 22 of 2022

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 22 of 2022
    Previous

    Legal Update 22 of 2022

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 13 December, 2022 | 0

    “Whether a private security company can be held vicariously liable for the violent conduct of its employee involving firearms during the course of employment?”

    Case:

    GMP KAISAR SECURITY (M) SDN BHD v. MOHAMAD AMIRUL AMIN BIN MOHAMED AMIR [2022] 1 LNS 2455

    Brief Facts:

    • This is a Federal Court appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision which had previously affirmed the High Court’s decision.
     
    • The Appellant, GMP Kaisar Security (M) Sdn Bhd (“GMP”) (who is the 2nd Defendant in the court of first instance) entered into a contract with a private limited company to provide armed personal bodyguards.
     
    • GMP had entered into a service contract with the 1st Defendant [the Guard] (who did not appear before the Appellate Court) to be their employee.
     
    • GMP then assigned the Guard as a personal security guard or “bodyguard” for an individual named, Dato Ong Teik Kwang.
     
    • Due to the nature of its employment, GMP provided the Guard with an automatic pistol.
     
    • On 1st December 2016, during the course of his employment, the Guard had used the said pistol and shot Dato Ong Teik Kwang and several other civilians, including the Respondent, Mohamad Amirl Amin (“Amirul”) who were passing through the Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Highway in Penang.
     
    • Amirul had sustained the gunshot injury to the chest which led to nerve injuries coupled with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Subsequently, Amirul filed a claim in tort against the Guard and GMP, for vicarious liability.
     
    • After a full trial, the High Court found in favour of Amirul’s claim. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, GMP appealed against the High Court’s decision.
     
    • By a majority decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision. Hence this present appeal. 

    FEDERAL COURT DECISION- APPEAL DISMISSED!

    • In dismissing the Appeal, the Federal Court was of the view that Amirul need only prove a few factors to determine if GMP is vicariously liable;
     

            (i)   the intentional wrong must be committed by the employee in the course of employment;

     

           (ii)   there must be connection between the wrongful act and the nature of the employment;

     

          (iii)   the nature of the employment is such that the public at large are exposed to risk of physical or proprietary

                  harm; and

     

          (iv)   the risk is created by the employer, owing to the features of the business.  

     
    • The Federal Court held that GMP, being the employer was the registered owner of the firearms with the carry and use licence issued by the Home Minister. Therefore, it was GMP who equipped the Guard with the pistol, thus creating the risk.
     
    • Further to that, GMP was responsible for selecting and employing the Guard to function as a personal bodyguard thus enabling him to carry the said firearm.
     
    • The Federal Court noted that the Guard’s actions may have been unauthorised by his employer but the Guard’s actions in unlawfully discharging his firearm and causing injury to Amirul was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable.
     
    • In conclusion, the Guard’s wrongful act was not independent from the task he was employed to do so by GMP.

    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj 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 *

    Previous

    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