员工的行为让公司损失, 必须赔偿 [2011] MLJU 1209

1. 公司与客户谈妥制造三合一咖啡制作系统。由于客户来自泰国，公司指示员工将上述协议带到泰国让客户签署。然而员工在泰国时，竟在未经公司授权下，私自在合约中附加额外条款。员工之后在2003年9月提交离职信，公司也接受了该员工的辞职。
2. 公司在同年的10月左右才知晓上述的附加条款。 由于当初员工私下的行为(同意额外条款)，导致公司不得不做出额外的工作和提供额外的设备，从而开销了RM293,802.77的额外费用。公司通过法庭要求员工对此做出赔偿。
3. 公司指出，员工的雇用合约里有清楚列明，员工必须将所有的进展都通知公司；然而他却没有这么做。The defendant did not fax and or e-mailed the said appendix to the plaintiff even though the said appendix is a very important document. 
4. 虽然员工抗辩说，他所有和客户的谈判过程，公司都是知情的。然而通过公司的证人所提供的证据，证据显示，公司在之前早已和泰国客户开会谈好所有的合约内容；而这些额外条款是员工在泰国的时候，自己跟客户私下(在没有汇报给公司和公司不知情之下)谈的。而且额外条款是让公司更加负担和负起更沉重的责任… the defendant in this case had changed the specification for DM2 by agreeing with C.M.Y.K Ltd in item 7 and 7.1 of the said appendix that blending rate is at least 5000kg/hr.
5. 虽然员工解释他在之前有拨电通知公司，他的说法也不被法庭采信。因为根据员工，员工自己是用了两天拟出了31项额外条款，所以法庭不认为员工能以一通电话就能交代完毕这些31项额外条款。法庭比较倾向于相信公司的说法，即是，员工事实上根本没有联系汇报公司… it is impracticable that the defendant can explain by telephone the said appendix which consists of 31 items (1 to 31) which took the defendant almost two days to prepare just by merely a telephone call… I tend to believe PW3 when he said that the defendant did not telephone him nor brief him regarding the said appendix.
6. 基本于上述理由，法庭认为员工私自在协议中附加额外条款，导致公司不得不做额外的工作和提供额外的设备，从而产生了额外的费用。
7. 员工也没有传唤任何证人或提供任何证据，例如传真和电子邮件，以证明本身在和泰国客户签署合约时，有先通知公司有关这些额外条款。这也抵触员工的雇用合约内容：员工必须将所有的进展都通知公司。员工因此违反了雇用合约的条款和受托责任。
8. 员工也承认由于公司需要做额外的工作和提供额外的设备，对此的确产生了额外的费用。法庭因此裁定员工需要对公司做出赔偿。
9. 不过由于公司无法证明部分的索赔，法庭取消了一部分的数额。the plaintiff is unsuccessful in satisfying this court that the cost for back charges as stated in paragraph B under “Particulars of Losses and Special Damages” of the statement of claim is RM81, 418.43. Therefore, this cost of RM81, 418.43 cannot be claimed.
10. 法庭所批准公司的索赔，员工必须付公司 RM293,802.77。

完整的内容，请阅读英文版

INTRODUCTION

1. In this action, the plaintiff, Nu-Con System Sdn. Bhd. claimed against the defendant, Mr. Ng Say Heng for losses arising from the defendant’s breach of duty to take care as an employee of the plaintiff as stated in the defendant’s letter of appointment and also his fiduciary duties towards the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case against the defendant is for a sum of 221.20 and general damages together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum on RM375.221.20 from the date of the order until date of full realization.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

2. The plaintiffs claim against the defendant is for special damages for the sum of RM375.221.20 and general damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s negligence and breach of the said letter of appointment dated 22.3.1999 and the duty of care to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff.
3. By a letter of appointment dated 22.3.1999 (the “said letter of appointment”), the plaintiff had offered the post of sales manager to the defendant and the defendant had accepted the said appointment on 23.3.1999. It is also an express and implied term in said letter of appointment that the defendant owes a fiduciary duty towards the plaintiff and that the defendant shall perform his duties with proper care.
4. On or about early August 2003, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with its customer, C.M.Y.K Ltd (“the said agreement”) to design, manufacture, supply and commission a complete unloading, weighing, batching and pneumatic conveying system for coffee, sugar, non-dairy creamer and aroma liquid injection for a 3 in 1 coffee system (“DM2′) for a total contract sum of USD750,000.00. C.M.Y.K Ltd is located in Thailand with its address at 39/57 Moo 2, Samutsakorn, 74000 Thailand.
5. The said agreement was prepared in Malaysia by the plaintiff and the managing director of the plaintiff together with the defendant signed the said agreement on behalf of the plaintiff in Malaysia.
6. On or about 8.2003, the plaintiff through its managing director has instructed the defendant to bring the said agreement to Thailand to witness and to ensure the execution of the said agreement by C.M.Y.K Ltd.
7. At the signing ceremony of the said agreement in Thailand, the defendant had incorporated an appendix (“the said appendix”) which included additional terms without any authorization or approval from the plaintiff. Amongst others, the said additional terms stated that the plaintiff would carry out additional works and provide additional equipment worth about RM375.221.20 for C.M.Y.K Ltd at no extra cost.
8. The act of the defendant in varying the original terms of the said agreement by adding the said additional works and equipment and binding the plaintiff with the said additional works and equipment without further additional payment to the plaintiff was an act beyond the authority given to the defendant and was done without any approval or consent from the plaintiff.
9. The defendant then resigned from the plaintiffs company through his letter dated 9.2003 and the said resignation was accepted by the plaintiff via its letter dated 3.10.2003. The plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant had intended to join and in fact immediately after his resignation joined a company which is not just in the same nature of business as the plaintiff but is also in direct competition with the plaintiff.
10. The defendant failed to inform the plaintiff or drew the plaintiff’s attention to the said additional terms agreed between the defendant and C.M.Y.K Ltd. The plaintiff only became aware of the said appendix when the managing director and project team visited C.M.Y.K Ltd in Thailand on or about October 2003 when the plaintiff was in the initial preparation to implement the said project in accordance with the original said agreement.
11. The equipment agreed to by the defendant were not possible to be carried out or achieved by the plaintiff.
12. Due to the aforesaid breach of the express or implied terms and conditions of the said letter of appointment and due to the negligence on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered losses arising from the additional cost incurred consequent to the additional works and equipment provided by the plaintiff due to the incorporation of the said appendix to the said agreement.

DEFENDANT’S CASE

13. The defendant states that as the sales manager of the plaintiff’s company, on the instruction of the plaintiff, he attended the execution of the said agreement in Thailand. During the presentation by the defendant to the plaintiffs customer, C.M.Y.K Ltd in Thailand, the customer wanted the items stated in the said agreement to be elaborated and detailed and listed in an appendix which was to be attached to the said agreement.
14. The said appendix is part and parcel of the scope of work which was to be undertaken by the plaintiff under the said agreement and was not additional works to be undertaken further by the plaintiff.
15. The defendant also states that the plaintiffs representative was aware and was informed of the said appendix. The defendant also states that the plaintiffs representative was in fact aware of the said appendix by virtue of the order of acknowledgement dated 7.8.2003 signed by the plaintiff and the defendant.
16. The defendant avers that there has been no breach of any legal duty of care by the defendant either in attaching the detailed terms of the items contained in the said agreement nor the failure of informing the plaintiff of the said appendix.
17. The defendant also states that the said project (DM2) had already commenced when the defendant decided to tender his resignation and at no point of time did the plaintiff ever informed the defendant that it was not aware of the said appendix.
18. The defendant denies that the plaintiff only discovered the existence of the said appendix when the said project was at the initial stage of being commenced in October 2003 as the project had commenced earlier. The defendant also states that any refusal by the customer C.M.Y.K Ltd to pay the balance sum payable under the said agreement was as a result of the work being unsatisfactory or not completed by the plaintiff and has nothing to do with the defendant.

FURTHER ARGUMENTS BY THE PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENCE’S COUNSELS

19. The plaintiff argued that:

(i) the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of the said appendix before the defendant agreed with C.M.Y.K Ltd to incorporate the said appendix to the said agreement. In the defendant’s letter of appointment, it is clearly stated that all developments with respect to the said agreement must be informed to Mr. Robert Tang (PW3) who is the plaintiff’s general manager at the material time. The defendant did not fax and or e-mailed the said appendix to the plaintiff even though the said appendix is a very important document. The plaintiff further submitted that it is impossible that the defendant could explain and informed the plaintiff by telephone of the said appendix which consisted of 31 items which took the defendant almost two days to prepare;

(ii) even after the defendant’s return from Thailand with the said executed agreement by C.M.Y.K Ltd, the defendant still failed to inform the plaintiff of the said appendix. The plaintiff’s witnesses gave evidence that they had never seen the said appendix. Ms. Malinda Kaur a/p Gurdeep Singh (PW1) gave evidence that if the said appendix had been attached to the said agreement she would have made reference of the said appendix in the plaintiff’s order of acknowledgement. The defendant himself admitted that the plaintiff’s order of acknowledgement made no reference to the said appendix;

(iii) the works mentioned in the said appendix are additional works. This is very clear as the said agreement only refers to DM2. It cannot be denied that from the evidence of the witnesses, the defendant had also included additional works in respect to DM1 which is C.M.Y.K Ltd’s old dry mix system which had already then been in operation for two (2) years; for example the additional works for DM1 are which can be found in items 1 and 29 in the said appendix which such items had no relevance whatsoever with the said agreement since the said agreement pertains to DM2; and

(iv) the Plaintiff relied on Malayan Banking Bhd v Basarudin Ahmad Khan (2007)1 CLJ 309,  Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd (1957)1 ALLER 125 and Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage (1957) AC 555.

20. The defendant submitted that:

(i) this court should bear in mind the fact that this action is brought by the plaintiff against its former employee. Whether there were indeed “additional works” or not is of no relevance to the issue at hand. C.M.Y.K Ltd themselves requested the same and therefore, unless the claim is between the plaintiff and C.M.Y.K Ltd for refusal to perform or breach of the contract, then the fact that the said appendix could not have formed part of the terms of the said agreement does not arise at all. 被告抗辩，既然原告没有否认“额外工作”的存在，原告也没有拒绝执行“额外工作”，那就证明原告是知道和同意此“额外工作”。

(ii) the plaintiff in proving the losses suffered by them in carrying out the “additional works” bear the evidential burden of producing all the documents relevant to support their claim. Since the plaintiff’s witnesses comprises of their own employees, this court should be slow in accepting their testimonies unless corroborated with contemporaneous evidence.

(iii) It is trite law that in examining the credibility of the witnesses, reference must be made against contemporaneous documents as well as other parts of the testimonies of not only the witnesses’ own evidence but also the evidence of other witnesses. Federal Court’s decision of UEM Group Berhad v Genisys Intergrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor (2010) 9 CLJ 785 was referred.

(iv) C.M.Y.K. Ltd’s two witnesses evidence were never seriously challenged by the plaintiff’s counsel and thus their credibility remains intact and should be accepted by this court. This argument is based on the Court of Appeal’s case of Shamin Reza Abdul Samad v PP (2009) 6 CLJ 123.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

21. In the course of this trial, 6 witnesses were called to testify: 3 from the plaintiff and 3 from the defendant. The plaintiffs and the defendant’s witnesses are as follows:

PW1 – Ms. Malinda Kaur a/p Gurdeep Singh

PW2 – Mr Lim King Keong

PW3 – Mr. Tang Hung Kiong (Robert Tang)

DW1 – Mr. Ng Say Heng

DW2 – Mr. Chai Tyedratanawad

DW3 – Mr. Tanchaika Sukhum

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED BY COURT

22. At the end of the trial, the issues to be determined by this court are as follows:

(1) Whether the defendant as the plaintiff’s sales manager owes a duty of care or fiduciary duty toward the plaintiff in accordance with the said letter of appointment dated 22.3.1999;

(2) Whether the incorporation of the said appendix by the defendant into the said agreement varies the original agreement and resulted in the plaintiff having to do additional works and provide additional equipment and consequently incurring additional cost or whether the said appendix is a mere detailed elaboration of the original scope of work which forms part of the terms of the original agreement which does not entail additional works and equipment;

(3) Whether the incorporation of the said appendix to the said agreement by the defendant tantamount to the defendant acting beyond the authority given to him and was done without any approval or consent from the plaintiff;

(4) Whether the plaintiff had incurred- losses for the- sum of RM375,221.20 due to additional cost incurred as a result of additional works and supply of additional equipment to C.M.Y.K Ltd due to the incorporation of the said appendix to the said agreement.

(1) Whether the defendant owes a duty of care or fiduciary duty toward the plaintiff in accordance with the defendant’s letter of appointment.

23. In the case of Malayan Banking Bhd v Basarudin Ahmad Khan (2007) 1 CLJ 309, the Court of Appeal held:- “The relationship between an employer and an employee is founded on contract It is subject to the general principles governing the implication of a term in a contract. A term will not be implied if there is no necessity to do so and the test of necessity is not met where the contract already contains a clear express stipulation to the effect as that sought to be implied. In the present case, there was an express promise in terms of the one that the plaintiff sought to have implied. The Defendant had expressly promised that he would to the best of his skill and ability perform all duties that might be required of him…”
24. In the case of Kenatex ILR 796, it was held as follows: “It is an established principle in industrial jurisprudence that in every employment contract there is an implied term that a party thereto will not without reasonable cause conduct himself in a manner likely to damage or destroy the relationship or trust and confidence between the parties as employer and employee (Bliss v. South East Thames Regional Health Authority (1985) 1 RLR 308 CA). The obligation pertaining to trust and confidence are reciprocal. An employee who expects his employer to honour this obligation has a reciprocal duty to honour his employer’s corresponding expectations in this regard.”
25. Based on the above cases, it can be established that the defendant as the plaintiff’s employee, owes a duty of care to the plaintiff. Further, it is clear that the defendant did not deny that he owes a duty towards the plaintiff and he would perform his duties with proper care as stated in paragraph 5 of his statement of defence dated 5.4.2005.

(2) Whether the incorporation of the said appendix by the defendant into the said agreement varies the original agreement and resulted in the plaintiff having to do additional works and provide additional equipment and consequently incurring additional cost or whether the said appendix is a mere detailed elaboration of the original scope of work which forms part of the terms of the original agreement which does not entail additional works and equipment;

26. As regard to the second issue, the plaintiff and the defendant are in agreement that there is an appendix incorporated to the agreement. The relevant issue to be decided here is whether the said appendix varies the original agreement by including additional works and equipment into the original version of the said agreement and consequently incurring additional cost to the plaintiff. In deciding this issue, it was established by the evidence of the witnesses that there were numerous meetings attended between the plaintiff and C.M.Y.K Ltd to discuss in detail in respect to DM2 before the said agreement was signed. In the said meetings, the details in respect to specifications, equipment to be purchased and price for DM2 had been discussed in great length.
27. The plaintiff’s witnesses further gave evidence that in the said meetings all doubts and uncertainties in respect to DM2 had been solved. The plaintiff’s witnesses also gave evidence that all the details discussed between the plaintiff and C.M.Y.K Ltd in the said meetings had been finalized and incorporated into the said agreement.
28. Malinda Kaur a/p Gurdeep Singh (PW1) gave evidence that there were draft details of the agreement as per the discussions in the said meetings sent to C.M.Y.K Ltd as many as three times for C.M.Y.K Ltd’s reference and amendments. Thereafter, when all the draft details had been agreed to by C.M.Y.K Ltd, then only would the said agreement be prepared.
29. I am in agreement with the submission by the plaintiff that if it is true that C.M.Y.K Ltd required further details in respect to DM2 as per the said appendix, C.M.Y.K Ltd would had surely had amended the draft details to incorporate the said appendix.
30. Lim King Keong (PW2) also gave evidence that the capacity of DM2 as agreed to between the plaintiff and C.M.Y.K Ltd with regard to ‘heading Design and Equipment Selection’ is approximately 4500-5000 kg/hr only. However, the defendant in this case had changed the specification for DM2 by agreeing with C.M.Y.K Ltd in item 7 and 7.1 of the said appendix that blending rate is at least 5000kg/hr. Due to this particular specification in the said appendix, the plaintiff had to change the equipment for DM2 to achieve the capacity of at least 5000kg/hr. In this regard, ‘at least’ means ‘minimum’ capacity must be 5000kg/hr. This had caused the plaintiff numerous difficulties and hardships in order to achieve the capacity of 5000kg/hr as per the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses.
31. Based on the testimony of the defendant, he admitted that the equipment referred to as ‘auto switching valve’ was never stated in the said agreement but the defendant had agreed with C.M.Y.K Ltd to control all pipe lines for DM2 and DM1 with auto switching valve. It is important to note that the valves to be used in the said agreement are all ordinary valves and not auto switching valve as agreed to between the defendant and C.M.Y.K Ltd in the said appendix.
32. The defendant also admitted that there are also modification works in the said appendix which are items 5, 6 and 8. For instance, in item 6, the defendant had agreed with C.M.Y.K Ltd to modify ‘sugar unloading hopper’ in DM1 to the same design as DM2. In this light, there is no modification work ever stated in the said agreement. This proves that not only were there additional works added into the said appendix but the defendant modified DM1 to the same level as DM2. This should not be so since the said agreement only covers DM2.
33. The defendant further admitted that some of the works stated in the said appendix are additional works and some of the works are impossible to perform namely item 4 in the said appendix. Based on the above reasons and the defendant’s own admission, I find that the incorporation of the said appendix by the defendant into the said agreement varies the original agreement and resulted in the plaintiff having to do additional works and provide additional equipment and consequently incurring additional cost.

(3) Whether the incorporation of the said appendix to the said agreement by the defendant tantamounts to the defendant acting beyond the authority given to him and was done without any approval or consent from the plaintiff;

34. From the evidence adduced by PVV1, PW2 and PVV3, it can be established that the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of the said appendix before the defendant agreed with C.M.Y.K Ltd to attach the said appendix to the said agreement.
35. This fact is founded based on the evidence given by the defendant that he required almost two days of discussion with C.M.Y.K Ltd in preparing the said appendix and the defendant agreed that the said appendix is a very important document.
36. However, the defendant gave evidence that he only telephoned PW3 to inform PW3 regarding the said appendix (which is denied by PW3). In my view, it is impracticable that the defendant can explain by telephone the said appendix which consists of 31 items (1 to 31) which took the defendant almost two days to prepare just by merely a telephone call. As such, on the balance of probabilities, I tend to believe PW3 when he said that the defendant did not telephone him nor brief him regarding the said appendix.
37. Further the defendant did not call any witnesses or tendered any documentary evidence such as fax and e-mail to corroborate that the defendant had informed PW3 regarding the said appendix before the defendant agreed with C.M.Y.K Ltd to attach the said appendix in the said agreement. As it is very clear from the said letter of appointment that the defendant must inform the plaintiffs general manager, Mr. Robert Tang (PW3) on all developments in respect to the said agreement, the defendant’s failure to inform PW3 or the plaintiff’s management regarding the said appendix before he agreed with C.M.Y.K Ltd to attach or incorporate the said appendix to the said agreement tantamount to the defendant acting beyond the authority given to him and was done without any approval or consent from the plaintiff. As such the defendant had breached the conditions of said letter of appointment and also the defendant’s fiduciary duty as an employee to take proper care not to jeopardize the interest of his employer, the plaintiff.

(4) Whether the plaintiff had incurred losses for the sum of RM375.221.20 due to additional cost incurred as a result of additional works and supply of additional equipment to C.M.Y.K Ltd due to the incorporation of the said appendix to the said agreement.

38. This fourth issue is regarding the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The law with regards to damages is trite. In Bonham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel Ltd 64 TLR 177 at page 178 it was held:

“… plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, so to speak, throw them at the head of the Court, saying: ‘This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages’. They have to prove it.” The dictum above was referred to and applied by the Court of Appeal in John v. Dharmaratnam (1962) MLJ 187.”

39. In the case of Popular Industries Ltd v. Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn Bhd (1989) 3 MLJ 360 Edgar Joseph Jr. J. says as follows:

“It is axiomatic that a plaintiff seeking substantial damages has the burden of proving both the fact and the amount of damages before he can recover. If he proves neither, the action will fail or he may be awarded only nominal damages upon proof of the contravention of a right.”

40. I agree with the submission by the plaintiff that the defendant’s witnesses admitted that some of the works in the said appendix are additional works. Further, it is clear that the defendant had also admitted that the modification works and additional works in the said appendix requires additional equipment to be purchased and thereby incurred further expenses.
41. The cost for additional the additional equipment in the said appendix had been summarized and explained by PW3 in his examination in chief which cost comes to a total of RM293, 802.77.
42. It is my finding that all the cost mentioned were due to the additional and modification works that had to be provided by the plaintiff due to the incorporation of the said appendix to the said agreement as per the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses. As such this cost or expenses should be allowed.
43. However, I am unable to accept the plaintiff’s submission that C.M.Y.K Ltd had deducted a portion of the 10% which the plaintiff is entitled to as back charges because of tax charges for the equipment which had to be provided by the plaintiff due to the said appendix and also due to hotel charges incurred which was paid by C.M.Y.K Ltd due to the said appendix. This is because the plaintiff is unsuccessful in satisfying this court that the cost for back charges as stated in paragraph B under “Particulars of Losses and Special Damages” of the statement of claim is RM81, 418.43. Therefore, this cost of RM81, 418.43 cannot be claimed.

CONCLUSION

44. For all the reasons stated above I make the following orders:

(a) judgment against the defendant in the sum of RM293,802.77;

(b) prayer for general damages is dismissed;

(c) interest; and

(d) costs to the plaintiff to be taxed.

Source: Nu-con System Sdn Bhd v Ng Say Heng [2011] MLJU 1209. Shah Alam High Court. Suraya Othman J.

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务/付费法律咨询，请联系我们。

*欢迎Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368)。If you wish to engage our services, kindly Whatsapp Wilson Kuek at: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / our Legal Firm’s contact at: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

*我们的律师楼拥有超过 20 年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。We handle various legal matters including civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreements, drafting employment contracts, drafting sale and purchase agreements, process loan documentations, providing legal consultations, offering legal advisory services and handling miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过3,000则法律文章，免费提供大众阅读+参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com。Our law firm’s website features over 3,000 legal articles, available for free to the public for reading and reference. Feel free to fill in your details to subscribe to our legal articles: www.kuekong.com.

*Wilson Kuek律师是《法律与你同行 Law & Justice》面子书群组的创办人。《法律与你同行》是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。Wilson Kuek is the founder of the Facebook group “Law & Justice.” “Law & Justice” is Malaysia’s largest legal platform, providing free legal assistance to countless individuals daily.

*加入我们的Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*加入我们的“法律与你同行的FB Page: https://bit.ly/lawandjusticefbpage

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 1): https://bit.ly/48IFP0g

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 2): http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #巴生律师事务所 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师事务所 #吧生律师楼 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师

#民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #商业纠纷

#处理工业法庭案件的律师 #处理工业法庭案件律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工案件律师 #劳工法庭案件律师 #劳工法庭律师

#专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师

#买卖合约律师 #买卖合同律师 #商业合约 #商业合同

#有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Kuek_Ong_Associates #Kuek-Ong-Associates #Kuek*Ong*Associates #KuekOngAssociates #Klang Legal Firm #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Civil Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer

#Specialised #Professional #Experienced #Trustworthy #Reliable #Reputable #Renowned #Famous #Skilled #Credible #Esteemed #Notable #Well-known #Capable

#员工失责 #员工疏忽 #员工粗心 #员工犯错

#员工恶意失责 #员工恶意让公司亏损

#员工故意失责 #员工故意让公司亏损

#员工刻意失责 #员工刻意让公司亏损

#breached of fiduciary duty #breached of duty of care#breached of express employment terms #negligence