Nurul Husna binti Ismail v Sonobee Ultrasound Sdn Bhd

Applicant(s): Nurul Husna Binti Ismail

Respondent(s): Sonobee Ultrasound Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant, holding a Biotechnology degree, entered into an apprenticeship contract with the respondent to train as a Sonographer, which included a one-year training period, a four-year bond, and a RM60,000 penalty for early termination.
• The appellant terminated the apprenticeship early and voluntarily paid the RM60,000 bond, subsequently filing a suit to reclaim the sum, alleging the contract was illegal, void, and induced by misrepresentation.
• The Sessions Court and the High Court both dismissed the appellant's claim, leading to this application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, as the amount in dispute was below the RM250,000 threshold.

• Whether the High Court erred in failing to hold that the apprenticeship programme, which permitted unqualified individuals to operate regulated medical devices, was illegal and void for being contrary to public policy under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.
• Whether the High Court erred in applying the doctrine of severance to an apprenticeship contract allegedly tainted by illegality, instead of holding the entire contract void and unenforceable.
• Whether the High Court erred in failing to hold that misrepresentations concerning accreditation and employment guarantees induced the appellant to enter an unlawful contract, thereby precluding restitution under Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950.

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of error by the High Court.
• The Court held that the appellant's allegations of illegality were unfounded and speculative, as there was no existing legal or regulatory framework governing sonography or sonographer training in Malaysia at the material time.
• The Court found no compelling evidence to support the appellant's claim of misrepresentation, noting that the appellant had entered the contract voluntarily, understood its terms, and had benefited from the training, thus being estopped from reclaiming the bond payment.