Mohd Abdul Karim bin Abdullah & Ors v Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja

Applicant(s):

• Mohd Abdul Karim Bin Abdullah
• Abdul Kadier Sahib
• Awang Daud Bin Awang
• Mohd Shariff Bin Omar

Respondent(s): Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja

• YAA Tan Sri Datuk Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim
• YAA Tan Sri Abdul Rahman bin Sebli
• YA Dato' Zabariah Binti Mohd Yusof

• The respondent, the Employees Provident Fund Board, initiated a civil suit against the applicants, who were registered directors of a company, to recover outstanding EPF contributions, dividends, and late payment charges.
• The company, which was subsequently wound up, was not named as a party in the respondent's suit.
• The High Court granted summary judgment against the directors, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, based on the precedent that directors could be sued independently of the company under Section 46 of the EPF Act.

• Whether the applicants had met the threshold requirements under Section 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
• The core legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 46 of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, specifically concerning the joint and several liability of directors for unpaid contributions and whether the company must be named as a party.
• Whether the Court of Appeal's decision in *Ong Kim Chuan & Anor v Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja* (2009), which allowed suing directors independently, remained good law.

• The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding that the applicants failed to satisfy the threshold requirements under Section 96(a) of the CJA.
• The Court affirmed that the interpretation of Section 46 of the EPF Act in *Ong Kim Chuan* was consistent with its own decision in *Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Edwin Cassian a/l Nagappan @ Marie* (2021), which established that joint and several liability permits the creditor to proceed against one or any number of debtors, including directors alone.
• The Court found no ambiguity or conflicting interpretations of Section 46, reiterating that the EPF Act, as social legislation, should be enforced to protect employee welfare, and directors' liability is not contingent on the company's financial status or winding-up.