Security Guard Negligence & Breach of Contract Claim Principles
Security Guard Negligence & Breach of Contract: When Security Fails, Accountability Follows
In high-value industrial environments, security is not ornamental — it is contractual, operational, and risk-critical. When theft occurs despite a live security agreement, the question is not merely how it happened, but who bears legal responsibility.
In the case of MEMC Ipoh Sdn Bhd v Dura Guard Force & Consultancy Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1306, the High Court in Ipoh reaffirmed a vital legal principle:
Where a security company is contractually engaged to prevent theft and safeguard property, and the very event sought to be prevented occurs, the evidential burden shifts to the security company to explain why it should not be held liable.
This decision provides authoritative guidance on:
- Security guard negligence
- Contractual duty of care
- Burden of proof in security contracts
- CCTV monitoring obligations
- Liability for theft under security agreements
At JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors, we act in disputes involving security service providers, breach of contract, negligence, and recovery of substantial commercial losses. This article distils the key legal principles from the case and explains how they apply to businesses facing similar losses.
The Facts: 2.7 Kilometres of Copper Cables Gone
The appellant company operated a factory in Chemor, Perak. It had entered into a written Security Service Agreement with a licensed security company to provide protection services.
The contractual obligations included:
- Protection of life and property
- Prevention of theft and pilferage
- Monitoring of CCTV systems
- Use of surveillance gadgets with frequent monitoring
Despite the agreement being in force, the following occurred:
- On 10.8.2017, staff discovered they could not start the HVAC system.
- Investigation revealed approximately 2.7 kilometres of copper cables had been removed.
- Replacement costs exceeded RM500,000.
- The security company denied liability.
The Sessions Court dismissed the claim. On appeal, the High Court reversed that decision and entered judgment for RM517,350 plus interest and costs.
Core Legal Issue: Who Bears the Burden When Theft Occurs?
The High Court framed the issue clearly:
Once the existence of the contract and the occurrence of the loss are proven, must the employer prove how the theft happened — or must the security company explain why it is not liable?
The Court held:
- The appellant proved:
- A valid security contract
- Theft occurred
- Loss was suffered
- Therefore, the evidential burden shifted to the security company to explain why it should not be held responsible.
This is a crucial principle in security negligence cases.
Legal Principle 1: Contractual Duty of Care in Security Agreements
Security providers are not mere manpower suppliers.
Where the agreement expressly provides duties such as:
- Protection of property
- Prevention of theft
- Monitoring of CCTV
These obligations are fundamental contractual undertakings, not optional best-effort services.
In this case, the agreement expressly required:
“Protection of life and property”
“Prevention of theft and pilferage, with the aid of surveillance gadgets such as CCTV with frequent monitoring.”
When 2.7km of cables were stolen, the very risk the contract was meant to prevent materialised.
Legal Principle 2: The “Event Sought to Be Prevented” Doctrine
The High Court emphasised that:
- The contract’s objective was to prevent theft.
- Theft occurred on a massive scale.
- The security company could not simply demand that the employer prove how it happened.
The Court held it was plainly wrong to require the employer to prove the mechanics of the theft.
Instead:
The security company must explain why it should not account for losses arising from breach of its contractual obligation.
This aligns with established Malaysian authority on security guard liability.
Legal Principle 3: Post-Event Blame-Shifting Will Not Succeed
The security company attempted to argue:
- Only 3 guards per shift covered 86,000 sqm.
- CCTV systems were not functioning.
- The employer failed to repair CCTV.
- The employer reduced the number of guards.
However, the Court found:
- The agreement remained binding.
- No evidence was led that complaints about CCTV malfunction were raised before the theft.
- The arguments were afterthoughts.
The Court observed:
It was the Respondent’s obligation to monitor the CCTV and if any were malfunctioning, surely it is for the Respondent to raise the alarm and have it repaired.
Silence before loss, and protest after loss, will rarely persuade the Court.
Legal Principle 4: Large-Scale Theft Implies Security Failure
The High Court noted that:
- 2.7km of copper cables is not removed in a single moment.
- It likely involved multiple sessions.
- Special tools were used.
- It was “not a day’s task.”
Such scale indicates:
- Lack of surveillance detection
- Failure of patrol systems
- Inadequate monitoring
- Breach of preventive obligation
Where theft is extensive and prolonged, courts may infer systemic security failure.
Legal Principle 5: Proving Quantum of Loss
The employer produced:
- Quotations
- Delivery orders
- Tax invoices
- Witness evidence
The finance director’s testimony on the RM517,350 loss was not challenged in cross-examination.
The Court applied Browne v Dunn principles — unchallenged evidence is deemed admitted.
Judgment was entered for:
- RM517,350
- 5% interest per annum
- RM30,000 costs CLJU_2021_1306_BC06157
Proper documentation of reinstatement costs is critical in commercial theft litigation.
What This Means for Business Owners
If your company has:
- Suffered theft despite engaging security services
- Experienced loss where CCTV monitoring failed
- Discovered post-incident excuses by the security contractor
- Incurred substantial reinstatement costs
You may have a strong claim for:
- Breach of contract
- Negligence
- Damages for replacement costs
- Interest and legal costs
The key legal framework is:
- Prove the contract.
- Prove the loss.
- Shift the evidential burden to the security provider.
When Does a Security Company Avoid Liability?
A security company may succeed only if it can demonstrate:
- It complied strictly with contractual duties.
- The loss occurred despite reasonable preventive measures.
- It had notified the client of security defects.
- The contract limited liability validly and enforceably.
- The loss was caused by the employer’s own breach.
Absent such proof, liability is likely.
Our Firm’s Approach in Security Negligence Claims
At JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors, we handle:
- Security guard negligence claims
- Breach of service agreements
- Commercial theft recovery
- Industrial premises loss disputes
- Contractual indemnity enforcement
- Litigation in Sessions Court and High Court
We focus on:
- Contractual interpretation
- Burden-shifting principles
- Evidential strategy
- Cross-examination precision
- Documentary proof of quantum
- Interest and cost recovery
We have successfully conducted numerous cases across diverse areas of litigation, including commercial disputes, negligence, tenancy matters, industrial relations, and civil recovery.
Security service failures are rarely simple negligence cases — they are structured contractual disputes requiring precise legal framing.
Why Immediate Legal Action Matters
Time is critical because:
- CCTV footage may be overwritten.
- Guard logbooks may be altered.
- Internal communications may disappear.
- Witnesses’ memories fade.
- Limitation periods apply.
Early intervention allows:
- Preservation of evidence
- Forensic analysis
- Contract review
- Pre-action demand strategy
- Stronger negotiating position
Key Takeaway from the High Court
The High Court’s decision reinforces this principle:
If you are paid to prevent theft, and theft occurs on a massive scale under your watch, you must explain why you are not responsible.
Security companies cannot hide behind:
- Insufficient manpower (if agreed)
- Non-functioning CCTV (if not raised earlier)
- Post-incident excuses
The burden will rest on them once loss is proven. CLJU_2021_1306_BC06157
Speak to Us
If your business has suffered losses due to:
- Security guard negligence
- Failure to monitor CCTV
- Breach of a security agreement
- Theft at industrial or commercial premises
We are ready to evaluate your contractual position and advise on recovery strategy.
JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors
Strategic. Precise. Litigation-Focused.
For consultation on security negligence or breach of contract claims, contact us to assess your rights and recovery options.
Written on: 13th February 2026
Contact JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors to make an appointment today!
🌐 Call us: +6017.6965.966 (Call / WhatsApp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!