RAZIF BIN ZAINOL ABIDIN v Majlis Perbandaran Selayang

Case Significance

Illustrates that a negligence claim against a local authority over the disposal of employment records may be dismissed where the substantive relief sought has become academic, with costs left to lie where they fall.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns a negligence claim brought against a local authority for disposing of a former employee's service records, and whether the relief sought retained any practical utility. The plaintiff had served as a medical officer with the defendant, a municipal council, from 2007 until 2015, when he resigned for personal reasons. When his new employer later contacted the defendant to update his consolidated service record and requested a copy of his Buku Perkhidmatan (service book), both the plaintiff and the new employer were informed that the defendant had disposed of his personal file and service book. Dissatisfied with the disposal, the plaintiff commenced this civil action framed in negligence, complaining of the manner in which the defendant had handled and destroyed the service book. The reliefs he sought included an order that the defendant reconstitute the service book in accordance with the applicable Service Circular (Surat Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 15 Tahun 2008) within a fixed period, and that the reconstituted book be delivered to the National Archives, to the plaintiff's then-current employer and to the Public Service Department for their records and safekeeping. The Court, having considered the facts, took the view that those orders had become academic — the record could effectively be addressed through the reconstitution and lodgement mechanisms available — so that the relief sought no longer served a live purpose. On that footing it dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. Given the circumstances of the case, the Court considered it just that the parties bear their own costs. The decision illustrates that a negligence claim over the disposal of employment records may be dismissed where the substantive relief sought has become academic, and that costs may be left to lie where they fall where neither party is to be penalised.