What legal basis did the High Court use to find Rosmah liable?

Question

Accepted Answer

High Court Orders Rosmah Mansor to Pay RM67.5 Million for Unreturned Jewellery

The High Court found Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor liable for failing to return 43 pieces of luxury jewellery, ordering her to pay RM67.5 million to Lebanese jeweller Samer Halimeh. This judgment stems from a consignment arrangement where Global Royalty Trading SAL delivered 44 pieces of jewellery, valued at US$14.57 million, to Rosmah in 2018 for viewing. The court determined that Rosmah received the jewellery, did not purchase or pay for it, and subsequently failed to return 43 of the items.
Failure to Return Consigned Items

The legal basis for Rosmah's liability rests on her failure to uphold the terms of the consignment agreement. Global Royalty Trading SAL supplied 44 pieces of jewellery to Rosmah in 2018, with the understanding that these items were for her to view, not to purchase outright at that time. The High Court's findings indicate that Rosmah received these items under a consignment basis, a commercial arrangement where goods are entrusted to another party for sale or handling, but ownership remains with the supplier until a sale is completed. By not returning 43 of these pieces, Rosmah breached the implicit or explicit terms of this arrangement, which typically obligates the consignee to safeguard and return the property or account for its disposition.
Inability to Account for Missing Jewellery

A key element in the High Court's decision was Rosmah's inability to provide a satisfactory account for the missing jewellery. The court found that she failed to explain the whereabouts of the 43 pieces that were not returned. This lack of accountability, coupled with the fact that only one item, a diamond and emerald bracelet, was recovered and returned to the company, strengthened the case against her. The court essentially concluded that the burden of proof lay with Rosmah to demonstrate what happened to the jewellery, and she failed to meet this burden.
Rejection of Defence Regarding Police Seizure

The High Court also rejected Rosmah's defence that the jewellery pieces had been seized during a police raid in 2018. This raid was reportedly linked to investigations concerning her husband, former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. The court found that Rosmah did not adequately prove her claim that the police had confiscated the jewellery. Without credible evidence to support this defence, the court proceeded with the finding that the jewellery was not accounted for or returned due to Rosmah's own actions or omissions, rather than due to external seizure by authorities.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What legal basis did the High Court use to find Rosmah liable?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends