XXXX v 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Sazali Bin Mohd Karli (Selaku Pengetua Defendan Pertama)

Case Significance

Illustrates that a claim alleging a school breached its duty of care to a special-needs pupil, or failed to meet special-education standards under the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008, fails where the alleged bullying and infringements are not proved on a balance of probabilities.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns a claim by a special-needs student — suing through his mother as next friend — and his mother against a vocational special-education school, its principal, the Ministry of Education and the Government, for breach of a duty of care and for failure to provide special education of a reasonable standard. The first appellant, a person with disabilities enrolled at the first respondent school, alleged that a breach of the respondents' duty of care had left him the victim of physical and verbal attacks while under the school's care and on its premises, causing injury and loss, and that the respondents had failed to adhere to the Federal Constitution and the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 by not providing special education fitted to his needs as a pupil with learning disabilities. The High Court dismissed the claim, and the appellants appealed. The Court of Appeal, with the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia holding a watching brief, examined whether the appellants had proved their allegations on a balance of probabilities. It accepted that schools must ensure adherence to the regulations, standards and policies of the educational authorities, including in the provision of special education to special-needs students, but held that the evidence was less than sufficient — let alone convincing — that the incidents complained of were bullying activities or that the first appellant was their victim, and that the alleged infringements of educational standards had not been established. Emphasising that courts decide on facts and evidence, the Court found that the appellants had failed to prove their claim, so that the High Court could not be said to have been plainly wrong. It unanimously affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal, making no order as to costs. The judgment illustrates the evidential burden facing a claim that a school breached its duty of care to a special-needs pupil.