1. ) TENASWARI A/P RAJEN 2. ) Madhavan A/l Kattan [Bertindak Sebagai Pentadbir-pentadbir Bersama Sah Harta Pusaka Thinagaran A/l Madhavan, Simati Dan Dalam Kapasiti Sendiri Serta Pihak-pihak Tanggungan Si Mati Yang Lain] v 1. ) KEPTEN MARITIM MOHAMMAD ROSLI BIN KASSIM PENGARAH MARITIM NEGERI IBU PEJABAT MARITIM NEGERI SELANGOR 2. ) LEFTENEN MARITIM NORAKMA BINTI HASSAN, PEGAWAI PENYIASAT, AGENSI PENGUATKUASAAN MARITIM PERLABUHAN KLANG, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Case Significance

A custodial-death claim in negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office arising from a detainee's suicide, addressing foreseeability, pleading of the duty and the misfeasance ingredients, and confining dependency damages to compensatory heads under sections 7 and 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision determines a claim founded on negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office arising from a death in custody, brought by the co-administrators of the deceased's estate, together with his dependants and in their personal capacities, against officers of the Maritime Enforcement Agency and the Government. The deceased had died by suicide while detained in the custody of the defendants. On the facts, officers of the Maritime Enforcement Agency, conducting a special operation off the coast of Selangor on 9 January 2019 on prior information about a particular boat, had arrested and detained the deceased for investigation under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The deceased was provided with an extra pair of pants, which he used to hang himself from a grill in the ceiling, and the CCTV monitoring did not notice anything untoward.

The issues the court examined included whether a duty of care existed, given that the harm was said not to have been foreseeable; the plaintiffs' failure to plead the law upon which the duty was premised; whether there was evidence of the ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office; and whether the evidence on loss of earnings in the dependency claim was cogent. These questions engaged the elements of negligence and of misfeasance in public office and the pleading requirements applicable to each.

In its conclusion the court addressed the assessment of damages, referring to Federal Court authority to the effect that damages under section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 are compensatory in nature and that an award of exemplary damages under section 7 is precluded, section 8 clearly prohibiting such an award, the claim for exemplary damages in any event not having been pursued. The court's final orders provided for the payment by the defendants of special damages, funeral expenses, a bereavement award to the first plaintiff, and loss of earnings, apportioned for the benefit of the first plaintiff and her children and the second plaintiff. The judgment illustrates the analysis of a custodial-death claim across negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office, and the confinement of dependency damages to compensatory heads under the Civil Law Act 1956.