Justice Shoba Rajah Dorai Rajah found that the defendants had unlawfully terminated a security services agreement with Uppal Aimed Guard Security Sdn Bhd.
The court awarded the security firm RM3,891,744.42 in damages, RM30,000 in exemplary damages, and RM50,000 in costs.
Uppal was represented by lawyers Gobinath Mohanna and P Taneswaran while Dawn Wong appeared for Nestle.
According to its statement of claim, Uppal entered into an agreement with Nestle on July 25, 2022 to provide security guards at five of the food and beverage company’s premises.
Guards were deployed starting on Aug 1, 2022, including at Nestle’s corporate headquarters in Bandar Utama.
Uppal claimed that on Aug 16, Nestle’s security manager instructed the company to replace three experienced Nepali guards with newly arrived foreign workers who had no prior work experience in Malaysia.
The firm said the request was outside the terms of their agreement.
Uppal complied and supplied five new guards, from whom Nestle selected three, despite two still awaiting work permit approval. The security firm maintained that the guards were legally in Malaysia and in the process of obtaining valid permits.
Nestle subsequently claimed that the guards lacked valid work permits, suspended Uppal’s services at the Bandar Utama site, and barred the guards from entering the premises.
Uppal offered to replace the guards, but Nestle rejected the proposal.
On Nov 7, 2022, Nestle terminated Uppal’s services at the Bandar Utama site with immediate effect and ended services at the remaining four premises with three months’ notice, citing a breach of contract.
Uppal argued that the termination was unlawful, executed in bad faith, and based on untrue allegations that the guards were illegal immigrants.
All three guards were subsequently issued with work permits which took effect retroactively. Uppal said Nestle had been aware of the immigration process throughout.
The firm further claimed that Nestle failed to comply with the agreement’s dispute resolution and cure provisions, which required notice and an opportunity to remedy any alleged breach before termination.