ANANDARAJ A/L S. THAVARAJ MISC BERHAD

ANANDARAJ A/L S. THAVARAJ MISC BERHAD

Cause of action accrued upon the employer's demand under the express on‑demand clause (clause 5.2), so the action commenced within the six‑year limitation period; D1 breached the Cadetship Agreement by resigning and abandoning the Training Course, making D1 liable and D2/D3 jointly and severally liable as sureties for the stipulated RM70,000 compensation; the compensation clause is enforceable absent cogent evidence of unreasonableness; no triable issue existed and summary judgment was properly entered, so the appeals were dismissed.

Citation
WA-11ANCVC-60-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / 1st Defendant: ANANDARAJ A/L S. THAVARAJ; Appellant / 2nd Defendant: GAJENDRAN A/L S. SUBRAMANIAM; Appellant / 3rd Defendant: TEH FUI KIM; Respondent / Plaintiff: MISC BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 March 2021
Case Number
WA-11ANCVC-60-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Summary Judgment (order 14 Application) / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; summary judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Liquidated Damages Clause, Limitation Period, Guarantee/surety Liability, Enforceability of Agreed Compensation
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Limitation Suretyship Summary Judgment Liquidated Damages Clause Limitation Period Guarantee/surety Liability +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANANDARAJ A/L S. THAVARAJ

Appellant / 1st Defendant

GAJENDRAN A/L S. SUBRAMANIAM

Appellant / 2nd Defendant

TEH FUI KIM

Appellant / 3rd Defendant

MISC BERHAD

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Summary Judgment (order 14 Application) / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time barred under section 6 Limitation Act 1953
  2. 2 Whether D1 breached the Cadetship Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the employer consented to or waived the breach by not objecting to the release request

Ratio Decidendi

Cause of action accrued upon the employer's demand under the express on‑demand clause (clause 5.2), so the action commenced within the six‑year limitation period; D1 breached the Cadetship Agreement by resigning and abandoning the Training Course, making D1 liable and D2/D3 jointly and severally liable as sureties for the stipulated RM70,000 compensation; the compensation clause is enforceable absent cogent evidence of unreasonableness; no triable issue existed and summary judgment was properly entered, so the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; summary judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered against the Appellants affirmed
  • Appellants jointly and severally liable to pay the Compensation Sum of RM70,000 to the Respondent pursuant to the Cadetship Agreement