On 12 August 2021, the Court of Appeal in Rohaidi bin Ismail v Kaneka (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd dismissed the Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal. This decision is significant for both employers and employees as it confirms the interpretation of Section 31 of the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (“SOCSO Act”). Key points The Federal Court decisions on the interpretation of Section 31 of the SOCSO Act were upheld, specifically that where an employee is receiving compensation for an employment injury under the Act, Section 31 bars any other claims for the same employment injury under written law and common law (See Tan Peng Loh v Lee Aik Fong & Anor [1982] 1 MLJ 74 and Che Noh Bin Yacob v Seng Hin Rubber (M) Sdn Bhd [1982] 1 MLJ 80). The recent Court of Appeal case of Rajendiran A/L Manickam & Anor v Palmamide Sdn Bhd [2020] 9 CLJ 510, which departed from the Federal Court cases above, are confined to claims for aggravated or exemplary damages arising from alleged gross negligence of the employer. The definition of “employment injury” under the SOCSO Act is wide enough to include personal injury caused by negligence. Brief facts The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent who suffered an injury allegedly arising from the course of his employment. Following this, the Applicant made an application to the Social Security Organisation (“SOCSO”) for compensation under the SOCSO Act for said employment injury and was granted the same. The Applicant filed a civil suit...
Read Full Story: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=57610dea-ad21-4eee-8f4b-9ab896c32d73
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.