PUTRAJAYA (Nov 17): The Court of Appeal on Wednesday allowed a motion by Aker Engineering Malaysia Sdn Bhd, along with Aker Solutions APAC Sdn Bhd and Aker Solutions Malaysia Sdn Bhd, to adduce a document called Licensing Assurance Review (LAR) report that allegedly shows the local equity composition of those companies, despite the parent company hailing from Norway.
Justice Datuk Yaacob Md Sam, who led a three-member bench, allowed the application made by counsel Selvamalar Alagaratnam, who wants to use the document to oppose the appeal filed by former employee and legal manager Seetha Kumarasamy over her suit against her former employers being struck out by the High Court.
The bench, which also comprised Justices Datuk Azizah Nawawi and Datuk Supang Lian, unanimously allowed the application after finding merit in the action.
Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram and Balan Nair, who appeared for Seetha, immediately told the bench that they wanted the right to cross-examine the document which was the 2017 and 2018 report, for which the bench allowed for her to file the application.
Initially, Wednesday had been fixed to hear Seetha's appeal over the High Court's decision to strike out her suit against her former employer.
However, the hearing of the appeal was delayed to a later date.
Aker filed the motion to admit the document, which Selvamalar claimed it had obtained from the Attorney General's Chambers after its manager Ahmad Hatta Kamaruzzaman was charged at the Sessions Court with cheating Petroliam Nasional Bhd's (Petronas) subsidiary Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd.
"These documents were obtained last August and we want to use it in the trial (against her appeal)," she said.
Manager claims trial
Ahmad Hatta has claimed trial, in which he is accused of submitting documents aimed at misleading Petronas Carigali into believing that one of Aker's subsidiaries was qualified as a bumiputera-owned company, when it was not.
The manager is alleged to have committed the offence on Aug 7, 2018. He has claimed trial to the charge, which is framed under Section 417 of the Penal Code. If convicted, he can be jailed for up to five years, or fined, or both.
Sri Ram objected to the admission of the document as it has nothing to do with Seetha's appeal.
He also said that this report, which Aker is relying on, could have been admitted to the court below (High Court) during the trial and it is not necessary to put it in this stage.
The former Federal Court judge also read a portion in the report that states "even though Aker Engineering Malaysia declared to Petronas its legal shareholders are 100% Malaysians, the LAR team noted that its actual ownership is 90% foreign ie Aker Solutions ASA. Due to its local ownership being below 30%, Aker Engineering Malaysia's status should be downgraded from bumi-local to foreign".
"Furthermore, the 90% foreign ownership would make Aker Engineering Malaysia no longer eligible for all its 16 registered Standardised Work And Equipment Categories due to not meeting the minimum bumiputera content requirement (ie 30%)," Sri Ram said.
He added that what his client is appealing against is the High Court striking out her suit and this issue should not be raised here.
The three Aker companies filed a suit and obtained a court order to seize Seetha's laptop and gain access to her email accounts in 2018, after she was ordered by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to assist in its probe. She was fired in February 2018, after being suspended earlier.
In response, Seetha filed a suit and named the parent company Aker Solutions ASA (Norway) along with the three companies, claiming their actions against her in filing the suit amounted to an abuse of process and conspiracy.
She sought unspecified damages for legal costs, anxiety and mental distress her former employer had caused her in filing the 2018 suit, as well as loss of reputation and credibility.
Aker Solutions in its defence said its 2018 suit was aimed at protecting its private information and accused Seetha of divulging confidential matters to third parties. It denied its legal actions were an abuse of process, saying its suit was "independent of and does not concern the plaintiff's communications with the MACC".