Sapura binti Mohd Noh v Sentosa Medical Centre Sdn Bhd & KPJ Healthcare Berhad
(Sessions Court Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No.: WA-A52NCvC-425-06/2022)
The Plaintiff’s claim was for the purported breach of her constitutional and/or statutory and/or contractual rights by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed as the Pharmacist-In-Charge at Sentosa Medical Centre Sdn Bhd (“SMC”). Amid rising Covid-19 cases in Malaysia, the Defendants introduced a policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19 as a condition for entering any premises or hospitals within the KPJ Healthcare Berhad (“KPJ”) group (“Entry Requirement”). The Defendants held multiple consultation sessions with the Plaintiff, informing her of three available options: (i) to receive the Covid-19 vaccine; (ii) to take unpaid leave until vaccination was completed; or (iii) to obtain a medical exemption. The Plaintiff refused all three options and continued accessing the Defendants’ premises.
Even after being verbally notified that she was prohibited from entering, the Plaintiff persisted in defying the directive. She was then placed on unpaid leave, which was later superseded by medical/hospitalisation leave due to a surgical procedure she underwent. The Company eventually withdrew the Entry Requirement following the Ministry of Health’s announcement that vaccination status was no longer required for entry into public buildings.
The Plaintiff sued the Company for damages for breach of constitutional rights, damages for harassment and intimidation, damages for breach of contract, statutory duty and negligence, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages.
Before the Sessions Court, the Defendants submitted that they had not breach their duty of care, as their actions were lawful and reasonable, in line with their obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994. The actions of the Defendants were in line with the posture of the Government and Ministry of Health at the material time. The Plaintiff was never forced to be vaccinated and was given options by the Defendants. Furthermore, there was no evidence of harassment, bullying and/or intimidation, as the Plaintiff was never singled out.
The Sessions Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and held that the Defendants’ Entry Requirement was lawful and in line with the Government’s policy at the material time. The Plaintiff had the option not to follow the Defendants’ Entry Requirement and could choose the options provided. The Defendants’ actions did not violate the Plaintiff’s rights under the Federal Constitution, given that those rights are not absolute and are subject to current regulations.
The Defendants were represented by Partner, Amardeep Singh Toor and Associate, Roseveen Kaur Tyndall, of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Amardeep Singh Toor (ast@lh-ag.com) or Associate Roseveen Kaur Tyndall (rkt@lh-ag.com)
Learn more about our partners who specialize in this area
