Nurul Husna Binti Ismail Sonobee Ultrasound Sdn Bhd

W-08-125-05/2025 Kand. 20 30/10/2025 09:39:37 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPLICATION NO: W-08-125-05/2025 BETWEEN NURUL HUSNA BINTI ISMAIL - APPELLANT AND SONOBEE ULTRASOUND SDN BHD - RESPONDENT [In the matter of the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur Civil Appeal No.: WA-12BNCVC-102-08/2024 Between Nurul Husna Binti Ismail - Appellant And Sonobee Ultrasound Sdn Bhd - Respondent] 1 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [In the matter of the Sessions Court of Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No.: WA-A52NCVC-856-10/2023 Between Nurul Husna Binti Ismail - Plaintiff And Sonobee Ultrasound Sdn Bhd - Defendant CORAM: AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, JCA HAYATUL AKMAL BINTI ABDUL AZIZ, JCA MEOR HASHIMI BIN ABDUL HAMID, JCA JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Enclosure 1 dated 20 May 2025 is the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 68 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964, based on three (3) questions of law as follows: (i) Whether the High Court erred in law and in fact by failing to hold that an apprenticeship programme which permits 2 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal unqualified individuals to operate regulated medical devices, in breach of the Medical Device Act 2012 and the Medical Act 1971, is illegal and void for being contrary to public policy under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950? (ii) Did the High Court erred in law and in fact in applying the doctrine of severance to an apprenticeship contract that was tainted by illegality, instead of holding that the entire contract was void and unenforceable? (iii) Did the High Court erred in law and in fact in failing to hold that misrepresentations concerning accreditation and employment guarantees had induced the Plaintiff to enter into an unlawful contract, and whether the Court consequently erred in failing to grant restitution under Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950? Backgrounds Facts [2] The background facts were well laid out by the learned Sessions Court Judge in her grounds of judgment which is reproduced herein: “[13] Plaintif berkelulusan Ijazah dalam bidang Bioteknologi dari Universiti Islam Antarabangsa dan kini bekerja sebagai seorang Ultrasound Technician di Klinik Anda Puchong. 3 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [14] Defendan pula adalah sebuah syarikat sdn bhd yang menawarkan kursus latihan berkaitan dengan pengendalian mesin ultrasound dan menawarkan perkhidmatan imbasan ultrasound komersial di Malaysia. [15] Sebelum daripada itu, plaintif telah memohon untuk mendapatkan latihan dan pengiktirafan serta kerjaya sebagai seorang Sonographer berdasarkan kepada iklan Defendan di laman media sosial Facebook Kelab Bio Medical Science of Malaysia bertarikh pada 3.11.2021. [16] Susulan daripada itu, pada 26.1.2022, Plaintif dan Defendan telah memasuki suatu kontrak perantisan dengan syarat-syarat seperti berikut: (a) Plaintif akan menjalankan latihan sambil belajar selama setahun dengan Defendan dengan elaun sebanyak RM2,000 sebulan; (b) Plaintif akan menghadirkan diri dalam kelas, latihan dan/atau ujian yang diadakan oleh Defendan; (c) Plaintif akan bekerja bersama Defendan selama empat tahun selepas tempoh perantisan tersebut tamat (‘Tempoh Bon’); (d) Defendan tidak perlu membayar yuran latihan kepada Plaintif; dan 4 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (e) Plaintif perlu membayar RM60,000.00 sebagai ganti rugi tertentu dan ditetapkan kepada Defendan sekiranya Plaintif gagal menghabiskan Tempoh Perantisan dan Tempoh Bon. [17] Sebelum Plaintif memasuki kontrak tersebut, Plaintif juga telah diterangkan bahawa beliau tidak akan dibayar caruman KWSP kerana status beliau sebagai perantis/pelatih. [18] Sepertimana yang ditawarkan dalam kontrak tersebut, Plaintif memilih untuk mengambil pakej A di mana Defendan akan menaja kos pembelajaran Plaintif sebanyak RM60,000.00 dengan syarat Plaintif menghabiskan Tempoh Perantisan dan Tempoh Bon. [19] Plaintif telah memulakan tempoh perantisan pada 14.2.2022 dengan menghadiri kelas, latihan dan ujian yang disediakan oleh Defendan. [20] Pada 29.12.2022, Plaintif telah memaklumkan kepada Defendan bahawa beliau ingin menamatkan Latihan sebelum tempoh masa dan Tempoh Bon dan secara sukarela telah membayar ganti rugi yang ditetapkan sebanyak RM60,000.00 melalui dua transaksi pada 2.2.2023 dan 7.2.2023. 5 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [21] Pada 19.10.2023 Plaintif telah memfailkan writ dan pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 19.10.2023 menuntut defendan membayar kembali jumlah RM60,000.00 yang telah dibayar oleh plaintif kepada Defendan.” [3] The Leave Application: (i) On 9 August 2024, the learned Sessions Court Judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. (ii) Aggrieved, on 15 August 2024, the Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Kuala Lumpur High Court. (iii) On 7 May 2025, the learned High Court Judge (HCJ) dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court decision. (iv) Dissatisfied and by reason that the adjudged sum awarded is below the RM250,000 threshold under section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 the Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to this Honourable Court in this motion. The Law [4] Section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 stipulates: 6 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "(1) No appeals shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in any of the following cases: (a) When the amount or value of the subject -matter of the claim (exclusive of interest) is less than two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal; ..." [5] It is a trite law that one of the grounds to consider in a leave application is whether there is a prima facie case of error. Abu Mansor JCA (as he then was) had observed in United Oriental Assurance Sen Bhd v. Penang Medical Centre Sdn Bhd [1999] 2 MLJ 542, COA: “It is trite law and very well settled that an appellate court will not lightly interfere with the finding of the court below unless it can be shown the lower court had erred. In an application to the Court of Appeal where leave is sought, the matter is still dealt with by the principles enunciated in Pang Hon Chin v Nahar Singh [1986] 2 MLJ 145 where Edgar Joseph Jr J (as he then was) held that leave can only be given 'where the applicant is able to demonstrate a prima facie case of error'. We find no such error.” The Parties Arguments [6] The Plaintiff took the position that: 7 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (i) The learned HCJ erred in law and in fact by failing to hold that an apprenticeship programme which permits unqualified individuals to operate regulated medical devices, is in breach of the Medical Device Act 2012 and the Medical Act 1971, thereby rendering it illegal and void for being contrary to public policy under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. (ii) The learned HCJ erred in law and in fact by applying the doctrine of severance to an apprenticeship contract that was tainted by illegality, instead of holding that the entire contract was void and unenforceable. (iii) The learned HCJ erred in law and in fact by failing to hold that misrepresentations concerning accreditation and employment guarantees induced the Plaintiff to enter into an unlawful contract, and whether the Court consequently erred in failing to grant restitution under Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950. [7] The Defendant took the position that: (i) When the present suit was filed against the Defendant there was no legal regulatory framework governing the practice of Sonography or the conduct of Sonographer training courses in Malaysia. 8 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (ii) Even the Plaintiff's own expert witness confirmed that there is no governing law or regulatory body for Sonographers in Malaysia. (iii) Hence, the Plaintiff's allegation of illegality is plainly unsustainable. One cannot be in breach of a non-existent law. (iv) It’s not in dispute that: (a) The apprenticeship period stated in the Agreement is one (1) year; (b) It therefore does not meet the time requirement stipulated under section 2 of the Employment Act 1955, which defines an apprentice as a person undergoing training for a minimum period of two (2) years; (c) However, it does not render the entire agreement null and void; and (d) It merely substitutes the inconsistent term with the minimum standard prescribed by law. (See also section 7 of the Employment Act 1955). (v) It was argued that: 9 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) All representations made to the Plaintiff were truthful and transparent, and that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the threshold to establish misrepresentation or fraud under Sections 17 and 18 of the Contracts Act 1950; (b) The terms of the Agreement were deliberated in full, and the Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to review its contents before signing; and (c) She had understood the consequences of breaching the bond and voluntarily paid the RM60,000.00, as evidenced by her own transfer references stating "break bond”. Sessions Court Finding [8] The learned Sessions Court Judge in her findings had observed: “Sama ada kontrak antara plaintif dan defendan terbatal dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan kerana pelanggaran undang- undang berkanun dan “common law”? [28] Defendan berhujah bahawa kontrak perantisan tersebut adalah sah dan kontrak tersebut dimasuki oleh Plaintif secara sukarela. Seksyen 10 Akta Kontrak 1950 memperuntukkan semua perjanjian adalah kontrak jika 10 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dibuat antara pihak-pihak secara sukarela dan untuk balasan yang sah disisi undang-undang: All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. [29] Meneliti kepada kontrak perantisan yang dimasuki antara plaintif dan defendan, adalah jelas ianya telah ditandatangani oleh plaintif dan Defendan dan defendan berhujah bahawa kontrak perantisan tersebut dimasuki secara sukarela oleh Plaintif. [30] Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Sesiapa yang berhasrat supaya mana-mana Mahkamah memberikan penghakiman tentang apa-apa hak atau tanggungan di sisi undang-undang, dengan bergantung kepada kewujudan fakta yang ditegaskan olehnya, mestilah membuktikan bahawa fakta itu wujud. [31] Memandangkan plaintif kini mempertikaikan keesahan kontrak perantisan tersebut, plaintif mempunyai beban untuk membuktikan bahawa Kontrak Perantisan tersebut adalah tidak sah, terbatal dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan. 11 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [32] Seksyen 24 Akta Kontrak 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless — (a) it is forbidden by a law; (b) it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law; (c) it is fraudulent; (d) it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or (e) the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of the above cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. [33] Jika diteliti isi kandungan kontrak Perantisan tersebut, defendan berhujah bahawa ia tidak termasuk di bawah mana-mana perenggan (a)-(e) kepada seksyen 24 Akta Kontrak 1950 kerana tujuan dan balasan kontrak tersebut adalah untuk melayakkan plaintif menerima sijil Sonographer daripada Defendan. Oleh itu, Kontrak Perantisan tersebut ada sah dalam tidak terbatal. [34] Plaintif pula berhujah bahawa Kontrak Perantisan tersebut tidak sah dan terbatal kerana Kontrak Perantisan tersebut 12 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tidak mematuhi keperluan kontrak perantisan di bawah Akta Kerja 1955 dan melanggar undang-undang sedia ada. [35] Dalam hujahannya, Defendan mengakui bahawa terma Kontrak Perantisan tersebut adalah kurang dari 2 tahun sepertimana keperluan seksyen 2 Akta Kerja 1955 yang menetapkan tempoh perantisan adalah tidak kurang dari 2 tahun. [36] Seskyen 2 Akta Kerja 1965 menyatakan seperti berikut: "apprenticeship contract" means a written contract entered into by a person with an employer who undertakes to employ the person and train or have him trained systematically for a trade for a specified period which shall not be less than two years in the course of which apprentice is bound to work in the employer’s service. [37] Walau bagaimanapun Defendan berhujah bahawa ini tidak menyebabkan keseluruhan Kontrak Perantisan tersebut terbatal sepertimana yang didakwa oleh Plaintif. [38] Seksyen 7 Akta Kerja 1955 menyatakan seperti berikut: More favourable conditions of service under the Act to prevail 13 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7. Subject to section 7A, any term or condition of a contract of service or of any agreement, whether such contract or agreement was entered into before or after the coming into force of this Act, which provides a term or condition of service which is less favourable to an employee than a term or condition of service prescribed by this Act or any regulations, order or other subsidiary legislation whatsoever made thereunder shall be void and of no effect to that extent and the more favourable provisions of this Act or any regulations, order or other subsidiary legislation whatsoever made thereunder shall be substituted therefor. [41] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan bahawa walaupun kontrak perantisan tersebut tidak memenuhi keperluan 2 tahun di bawah Akta Kerja 1955 ia tidak menjadikan keseluruhan kontrak perantisan tersebut terbatal. [42] Begitu juga dengan isu KWSP yang tidak dibayar di bawah Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991. Ia hanya akan membuka ruang kepada majikan atau defendan kepada mana-mana tindakan undang- undang yang boleh diambil akibat pelanggaran undang-undang tersebut. Sama ada terdapat mana-mana undang-undang yang mengawal selia kelayakan Sonographer di Malaysia. 14 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [43] Defendan berhujah bahawa setakat pemfailan tindakan ini di Mahkamah tiada mana-mana undang-undang yang mengawal selia kelayakan Sonographer di Malaysia. [44] Defendan menyatakan bahawa Cawangan Kawalan Amalan Perubatan Swasta, Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia mengesahkan bahawa Cawangan tersebut sedang membangunkan Arahan Ketua nPengarah Kesihatan berkaitan Perkhidmatan Ultrasound di Klinik Perubatan Swasta Umum bawah Akta 586. [45] Walau bagaimanapun, Arahan tersebut masih di peringkat draf dan perlu untuk mendapatkan pandangan teknikal daripada Ketua Perkhidmatan Obstetrik & Ginekologi dan Radiologi Kebangsaan, sebelum diangkat ke Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan untuk persetujuan. [46] Defendan juga menghujahkan bahawa Sonographers juga tidak didaftarkan di bawah Allied Health Professions seperti mana maklum balas yang diberikan oleh Pengarah Bahagian Sains Kesihatan Bersekutu kepada Dr. Kuharaj A/L Balasubramaniam (SP1) di muka surat 793 Kandungan 22. Beliau mengesahkan bahawa tiada sebarang badan mahupun undang-undang yang mengawal ahli sonografi di Malaysia. [47] Plaintif semasa perbicaraan telah memanggil seorang saksi pakar iaitu SP1 Dr. Kuharaj A/L Balasubramaniam 15 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal iaitu doktor pakar Obstetrics dan Gynaecology yang memberi keterangan mengenai isu sama ada terdapat mana-mana undang-undang yang mengawal selia kelayakan ahli Sonografi di Malaysia. Semasa disoal balas, SP1 mengesahkan bahawa tiada undang-undang yang mengawal selia Sonographer. [48] Defendan juga memanggil seorang saksi Pakar Defendan SD4 iaitu doktor NurAzurah binti Abdul Ghani, Pakar Perunding Pesakit dan Gynecology Hospital Canselor Tuanku Mukhriz Cheras juga turut mengesahkan tiada undang-undang yang mengawal selia ahli Sonographer. [49] SD4 juga memberi keterangan kepada Mahkamah mengenai persamaan cara latihan ahli Sonographer dalam sektor awam berbanding dengan sektor swasta. Menurut keterangan SD4, jawatan ahli sonografi tidak wujud dalam sektor kesihatan awam. Kaedah latihan bagi jururawat atau pembantu perubatan yang berminat dalam sonografi dibuat berdasarkan perantisan di mana latihan akan diberi secara praktikal terhadap pesakit sebenar. Pelatih-pelatih juga akan dihantar berkursus untuk memastikan kefahaman mereka dalam pengetahuan ultrabunyi. [50] SD5 pula dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa Defendan telah menawarkan kursus berdasaran sukatan pelajaran untuk melatih perantis-perantis di mana perantis- perantis dibenarkan membuat imbasan kepada pesakit 16 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal bersesuaian dengan tahap latihan dan pembelajaran mereka. [51] Plaintif mendakwa bahawa Defendan menawarkan pensijilan yang tidak sah, tidak mempunyai kelayakan untuk menawarkan kursus latihan sambil belajar dan bersifat manipulasi kerana menawarkan kontrak perantisan kepada orang yang tidak dapat mencapai sijil yang diiktiraf. Oleh itu kontrak perantisan tersebut adalah berdasarkan salah nyataan, tidak beretika dan melanggar polisi kepentingan awam. [52] Defendan berhujah bahawa setakat pemfailan kes ini, hanya terdapat satu pekeliling sahaja iaitu Surat Pekeliling Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan Bil. 2/2022 yang menetapkan Piawaian Minimum Penyediaan Perkhidmatan Ultrasound dan Garis Panduan Penggunaan Ultrasound Untuk Perubatan bertarikh 3.11.2022 yang dikeluarkan lebih kurang 10 bulan selepas Plaintif memasuki Kontrak Perantisan dengan defendan. [53] Defendan seterusnya berhujah bahawa Pekeliling tersebut hanya merupakan garis panduan semata-mata dan tidak mempunyai kuat kuasa undang-undang. [54] Bagi menyokong hujahannya, defendan merujuk kepada kes BK Fleet Management Sdn Bhd v Stanson Marketing Sdn Bhd [2018] 3 MLJ 499 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan 17 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal telah menerangkan prinsip undang-undang mengenai status pemakaian Pekeliling seperti berikut: [108] On the matter of the guidelines, the Court of Appeal found that in the guidelines had no force of law and were only advisory in character. The non- compliance of these guidelines did not carry penal sanctions, and were moral in nature. The non- compliance of the guidelines was therefore did not render the agreements invalid and unenforceable. The same, however, could not be said of the RPGT Act and the Stamp Act. [55] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan defendan bahawa ketidakpatuhan kepada surat pekeliling tersebut, tidak membatalkan Kontrak Perantisan tersebut, dan tidak membawa apa-apa pelanggaran undang-undang. Surat Pekeliling tersebut merupakan garis panduan semata- mata dan bersifat advisory in character. [56] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan di atas, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tiada undang-undang atau peraturan atau badan yang mengawal selia amalan Sonographer di Malaysia. Malah jawatan Sonographer juga tidak wujud dalam perkhidmatan awam. [57] Adalah menjadi amalan bahawa Sonographer dilatih melalui kursus-kursus tertentu yang dihadiri oleh jururawat 18 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal serta pembantu perubatan yang berminat di bawah pengawasan doktor pakar yang terlatih. [58] Defendan berhujah bahawa latihan dan kursus yang ditawarkan oleh Defendan juga mempunyai persamaan dengan cara latihan yang ditawarkan dalam sektor awam. Oleh itu, hujahan Plaintif bahawa Defendan menawarkan yang sijil tidak diiktiraf adalah tidak berasas, memandangkan tiada undang-undang yang mengawal selia kelayakan dan amalan Sonographer di Malaysia. Sama ada kontrak perantisan tersebut melanggar kepentingan awam. [59] Plaintif berhujah bahawa kontrak perantisan tersebut melanggar polisi kepentingan awam kerana Defendan tidak mempunyai kelayakan untuk menawarkan kontrak perantisan yang menawarkan sijil yang diiktiraf. Defendan, walau bagaimanapun berhujah bahawa Kontrak perantisan tersebut adalah sah dan tidak melanggar polisi kepentingan awam. [60] Bagi menyokong hujahan tersebut, Defendan sekali lagi merujuk keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam BK Fleet Management Sdn Bhd seperti berikut: [104] Secondly, even though the contract is one which prima facie falls under one of the recognised heads of public policy, it will not be held illegal unless its 19 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal harmful qualities are indisputable. The doctrine, as Lord Atkin remarked in a leading case, ‘should only be invoked in clear cases in which the harm to the public is substantially incontestable’. And does not depend upon the idiosyncratic inferences of a few judicial minds … In popular language … the contract should be given the benefit of the doubt. [61] Berdasarkan kepada kes di atas, suatu kontrak akan diputuskan sebagai tidak sah jika kontrak itu tidak boleh dipertikaikan bahawa ia memudaratkan kepentingan awam. [62] Oleh itu, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan defendan bahawa memandangkan praktis sektor kesihatan awam tidak bercanggah dengan kepentingan awam, kursus dan sijil defendan juga tidak boleh dikatakan bercanggah dengan kepentingan awam. Sama ada Kontrak Perantisan tersebut terbatal kerana terdapat salahnyataan atau representasi palsu atau remedi sivil untuk tort penipuan? [63] Seksyen 17 Akta Kontrak 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Fraud includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or by his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract: 20 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) the suggestion, as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true; (b) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge of belief of the fact; (c) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (d) any other act fitted to deceive; and (e) any such act or omission as the law specifically declares to be fraudulent. [64] Seksyen 18 Akta Kontrak 1950 pula memberi tafsiran salah nyataan seperti berikut: “Misrepresentation” includes – 1. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; 2. Any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person committing it, or anyone claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under him; and 3. Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement. 21 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [65] Berdasarkan peruntukan di atas, salahnyataan bolehlah ditakrifkan sebagai kenyataan palsu yang mendorong satu pihak lagi untuk memasuki kontrak yang mempercayai bahawa kenyataan tersebut adalah benar. [66] Plaintif berhujah bahawa butir-butir salah nyata oleh defendan adalah berdasarkan pemasaran palsu di mana Defendan menipu memasarkan kursus latihan sambil bekerja dengan penempatan kerja yang terjamin di syarikat Defendan. [67] Plaintif juga berhujah bahawa Perantis bekerja dengan Defendan sementara gaji mereka dipotong untuk tujuan latihan tetapi digunakan untuk menampung yuran Latihan dan ternyata kontrak Perantisan tersebut tidak mematuhi Akta Kerja 1950. [68] Plaintif juga berhujah bahawa defendan tidak mempunyai kelayakan industri yang diperlukan bagi menawarkan kursus tersebut dan melabelkan yuran kursus sebagai Yuran Pecah Bon Kontrak tersebut memanfaatkan defendan dan mengayakan defendan secara tidak adil dengan membuat pelatih membayar yuran latihan dengan hanya gaji minimum. [69] Defendan menyangkal dakwaan tersebut dan menghujahkan butir-butir salah nyata Plaintif tidak 22 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal disokong oleh apa-apa bukti bagi memenuhi keperluan di bawah seksyen 17 Akta Kontrak 1950 seperti berikut: (a) Pemasaran kursus perantisan tersebut adalah mengikut pakej yang dipilih Plaintif di mana Kontrak Perantisan telah ditandatangani oleh pihak-pihak. (b) Defendan akan menaja kesemua yuran latihan dengan syarat Plaintif diikat oleh bon untuk bekerja dengan Defendan selama empat tahun. (c) Defendan tidak memperdayakan Plaintif untuk mempercayai beliau akan terima latihan yang berharga. (d) Plaintif telah menerima manfaat daripada kontrak perantisan tersebut apabila mengakui bahawa ada klinik yang menawarkan untuk membeli Bon beliau walaupun belum habis tempoh latihan dengan defendan. (e) Plaintif bekerja sebagai sonographer sebaik sahaja beliau pecah bon dengan Defendan, tanpa sebarang latihan tambahan. (f) Defendan tidak memotong gaji Plaintif untuk tujuan ‘latihan’ Defendan hanya memotong elaun Plaintif apabila Plaintif mengambil cuti tidak berbayar. 23 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam Kontrak Perantisan tersebut. (g) Defendan seterusnya menghujahkan Plaintif tidak perlu membuat bayaran dalam Kontrak Perantisan ini sekiranya beliau menghabiskan kedua-dua Tempoh Perantisan dan Tempoh Bon serta lulus dalam peperiksaan. h) Pelabelan yuran juga tidak mengelirukan kerana Plaintif telah beberapa kali menunjukkan bahawa beliau faham, setuju dan mengakui jumlah sebanyak RM60,000.00 adalah dibayar kepada Defendan sebagai fi pecah bon, dan bukannya yuran latihan, seperti dalam mesej WhatsApp antara Plaintif dengan SD2, surat letak jawatan Plaintif dan slip transaksi Maybank yang dikemukakan. [70] Semasa Plaintif iaitu SP3 disoal balas oleh peguam Defendan, memberi keterangan bahawa beliau telah bersetuju, faham, mengaku dan telah membayar RM60,000.00 sebagai fi pecah bon dan bukannya yuran latihan. [71] Defendan juga tidak pernah memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa sijil yang dikeluarkan adalah diiktiraf oleh Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia. Plaintif hanya diberitahu 24 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal bahawa sijil akan dikeluarkan oleh syarikat Defendan sahaja. [72] Mengikut Perenggan 3.3 Kontrak Perantisan tersebut, Defendan telah memperuntukkan dengan jelas bahawa Plaintif akan mendapat sijil sonographer yang dianugerahkan oleh Defendan: … you shall gain the necessary skill and knowledge requisite to obtain the Certificate of Sonographer awarded by the Company, subject to passing the examination concerned. [73] Plaintif telah diberi masa sepanjang 30 minit untuk membaca Kontrak Perantisan dan diberi penjelasan tentang Kontrak Perantisan. Plaintif telah faham terma kontrak dan diberitahu bahawa sijil akan ditandatangani oleh ahli radiologi, dan bukannya Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia sebelum menurunkan tandatangannya. [74] Bagi relief yang dipohon Plaintif, Plaintif perlu memenuhi keperluan di bawah seksyen 66 Akta Kontrak 1950 seperti berikut: When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under the agreement or contract is bound to 25 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it. [75] Defendan berhujah bahawa jika Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Kontrak Perantisan tersebut adalah tidak sah dan terbatal, Plaintif telah menerima bermanfaat dalam Kontrak Perantisan ini dan tidak berhak untuk menuntut kesemua fi pecah bon atas dasar pengayaan tidak patut. [76] Berdasarkan keterangan di atas, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa tiada lansung keterangan bagaimana Plaintif dipedayakan memasuki kontrak tersebut berdasarkan salah nyataan atau tort penipuan. [77] Oleh itu kontrak perantisan tersebut adalah sah dan tidak terbatal. Plaintif tidak boleh bergantung kepada Seksyen 66 Akta Kontrak 1950 bagi mendapatkan semula fi pecah bon sebanyak RM60,000.00 yang telah dibayarnya. [78] Oleh itu kontrak tersebut telah dimasuki oleh Plaintif dan defendan secara sukarela “with their eyes wide open”. Plaintif diestop daripada menuntut semula fi pecah bonnya. Isu ketiga-sama ada Plaintif berhak dibawah prinsip undang-undang restitusi untuk menuntut balik RM60,000 fi pecah bon yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan dan pampasan bagi kerugian yang dituntut. 26 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [79] Defendan menghujahkan bahawa Plaintif adalah diestop daripada remedi restitusi untuk tuntutan RM60,000 sebagai fi pecah bon yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif. [80] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] 1 MLJ 752 memutuskan bahawa seorang plaintif tidak dibenarkan untuk approbate dan reprobate: On the principle that a person may not approbate and reprobate, a species of estoppel has arisen which seems to be intermediate between estoppel by record and estoppel in pais, and may conveniently be referred to here. Thus a party cannot, after taking advantage under an order (eg payment of costs), be heard to say that it is invalid and ask to set it aside, or to set up to the prejudice of persons who have relied upon it a case inconsistent with that upon which it was founded; nor will he be allowed to go behind an order made in ignorance of the true facts to the prejudice of third parties who have acted on it. [82] Dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Development & Commercial Bank Berhad v Aspatra Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor [1995] 3 MLJ 472, ia telah diputuskan: A person cannot approbate and reprobate so that if a person becomes aware of an irregularity of service and then subsequently takes a further step in the action which 27 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal could only be useful if the service had been good, the said irregularity is waived. [83] Kelakuan Plaintif dalam kes ini menjelaskan tingkah laku approbate and reprobate. Plaintif semasa disoal balas oleh Peguam defendan mengakui dan bersetuju bahawa RM60,000.00 yang dibayarnya adalah fi pecah bon dan bukannya yuran latihan. Selepas Plaintif pecah bon dengan defendan, menyatakan bahawa yuran fee pecah bon tersebut sebenarnya adalah yuran latihan dan membuat tuntutan semula bayaran fi pecah bon RM60,000.00 yang telah dibayar berdasarkan terma kontrak tersebut. [84] Oleh yang demikian Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan bahawa Plaintif adalah diestop daripada remedi restitusi untuk tuntutan RM60,000 sebagai fi pecah bon yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif. [85] Apa yang jelas dalam kes ini, adalah menjadi keterangan yang tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa Plaintif telah mendapat manfaaat penuh daripada kontrak Perantisan yang ditawarkan Defendan. Plaintif sekarang menjawat jawatan sebagai Ultrasound Technician di Klinik Anda Puchong setelah berhenti kursus dan tidak menghabiskan tempoh kontraknya dengan Defendan. 28 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [86] Berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi, keterangan dokumen yang difailkan serta hujahan pihak-pihak, Mahkamah mendapati plaintif gagal membuktikan kesnya di atas imbangan kebarangkalian, oleh itu tuntutan Plaintif untuk perintah deklarasi dan relif lain yang dipohon dalam para (i)- (v) writ Saman dan Penyata Tuntutan ditolak dengan kos sebanyak RM8,000.00 dibayar kepada Defendan.” Our Decision [9] We have evaluated the three (3) question posed for leave to appeal. To intervene, the Plaintiff must show a prima facie case of error to warrant a leave to appeal. [10] Having examined and scrutinised the notes of proceedings, the oral and written submissions made by both parties, we now come to our unanimous decision. [11] In light of the foregoing, we therefore answer the following issues posed with our reasoning as follows: (1) Whether the High Court erred in law and in fact by failing to hold that an apprenticeship programme which permits unqualified individuals to operate regulated medical devices, in breach of the Medical Device Act 2012 and the Medical Act 1971, is illegal and void for being contrary to public policy under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950? 29 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal We answer in the negative. (a) The allegation by the Plaintiff is unfounded without any legal basis as a valid foundation to support it. In the absence of such a legal foundation, the premise upon which the claim is rested has no legs to stand on and consequently must fail. (b) Without an existing and an enforceable legal instrument that regulates the impugned industry at the juncture when the suit was taken up against the Defendant, it renders the present suit wholly speculative. It is trite law that the Court does not act on speculation. One cannot read a supposed restriction or legal position that is not there to begin with. (2) Did the High Court erred in law and in fact in applying the doctrine of severance to an apprenticeship contract that was tainted by illegality, instead of holding that the entire contract was void and unenforceable? We answer in the negative. (a) The issue of the alleged illegality of the impugned apprenticeship agreement is again speculative. There is no legal basis to support it in light of the foregoing circumstances. 30 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) The impugned contract is valid for the purpose that it was entered into. In the circumstances, there is no legal infirmity to bar the application of the doctrine of severance in the issue arising. (3) Did the High Court erred in law and in fact in failing to hold that misrepresentations concerning accreditation and employment guarantees had induced the Plaintiff to enter into an unlawful contract, and whether the Court consequently erred in failing to grant restitution under Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950? We answer in the negative. (a) There are no compelling evidential materials, save for the bare assertions of the Plaintiff, to support the allegation of the supposed misrepresentation by the Defendant. It is a trite law that the strength of a claim is always subject to the availability of cogent evidence in the absence of which the claim is destined to fail. (b) We are not all convinced that the learned HCJ had erred in law and in fact in the circumstances. [12] In the premise, we are unanimous in finding that the Plaintiff failed to raise and establish a prima facie case of error to warrant a 31 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal leave to appeal to be granted. The present notice of motion is hereby dismissed with a cost of RM10,000.00 subject to allocator. Date: 30th October 2025 - sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Counsel For the Appellant : Farah Irina binti Khairi Izwan [Farah, Farhana & Company (Kuala Lumpur)] For the Respondents : 1. Arlene Tan Eng Guat 2. Aedre Thong Siew Chie [Ng, Arlene Tan & Leong (Bangsar)] 32 S/N V5auCqqqxky8AkYrMN/eTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal