Tort

400 cases · August 2017 to June 2026

Overview

Tort appears in 400 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).

In this practice area

Tort collects the claims for civil wrongs — negligence, defamation, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and the intentional torts — together with the reasoning by which the Malaysian courts decide liability and its limits. The judgments range from personal-injury and duty-of-care questions to the accountability of public officers and institutions.

Duty and its scope are recurring concerns. Judgments examine the non-delegable duty of care owed by a homeowner for the negligence of an independent contractor, the vicarious liability of an employer for the wrongs of an employee tested by the "close connection" and "course of employment" analysis, and the duty of confidentiality owed by a bank to its customer, framed both as an implied contractual term and as a statutory duty under section 97 of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act. Institutional negligence appears in the "school bullying" cases arising from assaults in residential schools, where the courts consider the responsibility of the school for events on its premises.

The area also captures torts against public authorities. Claims for false imprisonment and misfeasance in public office run through the collection, raising the immunity of witnesses for evidence given in judicial proceedings, the finality of litigation, and the standard of "targeted malice or reckless indifference" that misfeasance requires. Several judgments concern claims arising from a death in custody and the award of exemplary and aggravated damages against the authorities responsible.

The cases sit mainly in the High Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on questions of principle about the existence and scope of a duty of care. As a set the area shows how the Malaysian courts identify who owes a duty to whom, when a breach gives rise to liability, and where the law draws the line between actionable wrong and damage that must lie where it falls.

Case Volume by Year

215

2017–2026

Key Issues & Sub-Topics

Negligence — Duty of care — Road accident — Tree falling onto federal road — Whether public works department and government liable for failing to maintain or remove dangerous tree within federal road reserve — Whether local authority's statutory powers to trim trees displace federal landowner's common law duty of care — Whether doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable 2 Negligence — Res ipsa loquitur — Conditions for application — Tree under exclusive control of defendant authority — Accident of kind not occurring without negligence — Burden of proof shifting to defendant — Failure to provide exculpatory evidence — Inference of negligence drawn 2 Negligence — Concessionaire — Privatisation agreement — Express exclusion of landscaping works from scope of duties — Whether concessionaire liable for tree maintenance — Contractual duties not extending to third party road users 2 Kecuaian — Treler muatan luar biasa — Muatan melintang laluan — Tiada lampu amaran — Permit tidak sah — Kegagalan SOP eskot — Prima facie kecuaian — Tanggungjawab lebih tinggi kenderaan berat — Pembahagian liabiliti. Keterangan — Percanggahan saksi — Kebolehpercayaan — Pembayaran saman sebagai pengakuan sokongan. Undang-undang Trafik — Pelanggaran Kaedah 16 Kaedah Lalu Lintas 1959 — Amalan keselamatan muatan besar. Ganti Rugi — Penilaian kuantum — Garis panduan — Kecederaan otak serius — Kos penjagaan masa hadapan — Tiada asas menaikkan kuantum. Prosedur — Rayuan & rayuan silang — Standard campur tangan — Liabiliti diselaraskan 90:10. 2 Kecuaian — Kemalangan jalan raya — Liabiliti — Rayuan Sivil — Penilaian semula dapatan fakta — Plaintif mendakwa Defendan memandu secara cuai dan menyebabkan kemalangan — Plaintif mengalami kecederaan parah dan tidak memberi keterangan — Pegawai Penyiasat memberi keterangan berdasarkan siasatan serta dokumen pameran — Mahkamah Sesyen menolak tuntutan Plaintif dan mendapati Plaintif cuai 100% — Rayuan oleh Plaintif terhadap liabiliti — Rayuan balas oleh Defendan-defendan terhadap kuantum gantirugi — Isu sama ada Mahkamah Sesyen tersalah dalam menilai bukti dan membuat dapatan berhubung kecuaian serta liabiliti pihak-pihak — Prinsip campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap dapatan Mahkamah bicara — Tiada kekhilafan jelas (plainly wrong) oleh Mahkamah Sesyen — Mahkamah mendapati Plaintif cuai 100% — Rayuan Plaintif terhadap liabiliti ditolak — Rayuan Defendan-defendan terhadap kuantum juga ditolak — Award gantirugi am dan khas dianggap munasabah dan setimpal — Tiada kesilapan dalam pelaksanaan budibicara oleh Hakim bicara. 2 Conversion — Essential elements — Intentional dealing — Dealing inconsistent with possessory rights — Authorisation — Procurement — Ratification — Adoption — Whether ownership of premises sufficient to establish conversion — Proof of dealing — Circumstantial evidence — Measure of damages — Nominal damages — Value of converted goods — Electricity as subject matter of conversion — Whether issue necessary for determination. 1 Negligence — Road accident — Quantum of damages — Severe traumatic brain injury — Skull fracture — Post-traumatic epilepsy — Whether awards excessive — Appellate interference with assessment of damages — Loss of earning capacity — Distinction between future earnings and earning capacity — Whether multiplicand-multiplier approach appropriate — Nursing care — Whether medical evidence established lifelong need for nursing assistance — Future pain and suffering for future surgery — Whether award justified. 1 Damages — Quantum — Road traffic accident — Right below‑knee amputation — Appeal against Sessions Court award — Loss of prospect of marriage — Whether award available to male plaintiff — Loss of earning capacity — Whether real and substantial risk of future disadvantage — Cost of prosthesis — Bionic microprocessor prosthesis v mechanical prosthesis — Principle of restitutio in integrum — Whether socio‑economic background of plaintiff relevant — Appeal allowed in part. 1 Accident — Liability — Sessions Court — 100% liability on Defendants 1 Fitnah — Libel — Penerbitan melalui Facebook — Perkongsian semula posting pihak ketiga — Sama ada publication dibuktikan — Sama ada posting merujuk kepada Plaintif — Sama ada perkataan membawa makna fitnah — Penilaian makna menurut pembaca biasa yang munasabah — Bacaan keseluruhan dan konteks penerbitan — Aduan pengguna dan kritikan terhadap caj rawatan pergigian — Makna fitnah gagal dibuktikan. Tort — Fitnah — Innuendo — Keperluan pliding — Aturan 78 Kaedah 3(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Kegagalan memplidkan fakta luar dan makna tersirat — Sama ada Mahkamah boleh membina sendiri makna fitnah — Innuendo gagal dibuktikan. Tort — Fitnah — Pembelaan — Justifikasi — Komen berpatutan — Perlindungan bersyarat — Seksyen 9 Akta Fitnah 1957 — Posting dalam kumpulan Facebook komuniti pergigian — Isu caj rawatan pergigian dan pengalaman pesakit — Perkara berkepentingan awam atau kepentingan komuniti — Ketiadaan niat jahat — Pembelaan fair comment berjaya. Tort — Malicious falsehood — Tuntutan alternatif — Keperluan membuktikan kepalsuan, niat jahat dan kerugian khusus — Tiada bukti special damage — Tuntutan gagal. Remedi — Gantirugi am — Gantirugi teruk — Gantirugi teladan — Injunksi — Posting dipadam pada hari yang sama — Tiada bukti kerugian reputasi signifikan — Tiada asas injunksi — Tuntutan ditolak sepenuhnya dengan kos RM70,000.00. 1 Negligent misrepresentation — Essential elements — Special relationship — Duty of care — Assumption of responsibility — Failure to plead — Whether claim discloses reasonable cause of action — Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v Teh Kim Dar @ Tee Kim; Khutubul Zaman @ Khutubul Jaman bin SNS Bukhari & Anor v TJB Development Sdn Bhd & Anor applied. 1 Negligence — Road accident — Appeal on quantum — Appellate intervention 1 Kecuaian profesional — Peguamcara — Stakeholder — Transaksi jual beli tanah — Pelepasan wang stakeholder — Sama ada peguamcara wajib mematuhi arahan unilateral anak guam — Standard profesional munasabah — Wong Kiong Hung & Anor v Chang Siew Lan & Anor (Appeal) [2009] 4 MLJ 183 — Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 — Toh Theam Hock v Kemajuan Perwira Management Corporation Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 116. Keterangan — Penilaian kredibiliti saksi — Percanggahan antara keterangan lisan dan dokumen kontemporari — Keterangan SP1 dan SD1 — Mahkamah boleh menerima sebahagian keterangan dan menolak bahagian lain — PP v Datuk Haji Harun Haji Idris (No 2) [1976] 1 MLRH 562. Gantirugi — Kausaliti — Ujian but-for — Keterpencilan kerugian — Kehilangan keuntungan projek pecah lot — Kerugian spekulatif — Beban pembuktian — Seksyen 101 dan 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 — Hong Yik Trading Sdn Bhd v Liziz Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 8 CLJ 491 — Majlis Perbandaran Selayang v Suresh Subramaniam [2025] 4 MLJ 303 — Shearn Delamore & Co v Sadacharamani Govindasamy [2018] 3 MLRA 307. 1 Negligence — Road traffic accident — Rented vehicle — Alleged brake failure — Whether proven — Balance of probabilities — Consistent eyewitness evidence — Absence of skid marks — Investigating officer’s findings — Evidence — Res ipsa loquitur — Applicability — Control over mechanical condition vs driving — Evidential burden — Evidence — Adverse inference — s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 — Disposal of material evidence — Failure to preserve vehicle — Negligence — Duty of care — Car-sharing operator — Non-delegable duty — Passengers as foreseeable class — Defences — Volenti non fit injuria — No knowledge of specific risk — Not established — Liability — Apportionment — Driver’s contributory negligence — Speed at intersection — 90:10 upheld — Damages — Quantum — Loss of actual earnings — Legality principle — Loss of earning capacity — Multiplier-multiplicand — Practice — Appeal — Appellate interference — No misdirection — Cross-appeal — Competency — Order 8 r 55 ROC 2012 1 Negligence — Claim for breach of contract against the First Defendant and negligence against both Defendants, in relation to cracks and delamination of the external plaster walls of the development Sky Loft Premium Suites — Liability of Defendants in construction Sky Loft Premium Suits — Whether Defendants owed duty of care to purchasers of units in Sky Loft Premium Suites —Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to commence this action under Strata Management Act 2013 [Act 757] —Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 [Act 254] — Whether the Defendants are liable in contract and/or negligence — Whether the Defendants owe duty of care to the Plaintiff — Whether the Plaintiff has proven breach duty of care and the breach has caused the damage or harm to the Plaintiff — Whether the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are legally sustainable 1 Kemalangan jalan raya — Beban pembuktian — Akta Keterangan 1950 ss 101–102 — Kegagalan plaintif membuktikan penglibatan defendan — Percanggahan keterangan — Dokumen kontemporari — Penilaian kredibiliti saksi — Campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan — Prinsip plainly wrong — Insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence — Kuantum — Taksiran gantirugi bersyarat — Tiada liabiliti — Insurans motor — Rayuan balas penanggung insurans — Remedi deklaratori — Isu akademik — Tiada keperluan deklarasi — Rayuan ditolak — Kos dalam kos 1 Negligence — Road traffic accident — Road maintenance contractor — Plastic cone on road shoulder — Whether contractor negligent — Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Evidence Act 1950, s 101 Evidence — Evaluation — Conflicting versions — Police reports lodged belatedly — Police reports lodged on same date using similar language — Whether reports orchestrated by third party — Credibility and probative value — Investigating officer’s conclusion based on presumption — Hearsay evidence — Medical records Appeal — Findings of fact — Trial judge’s failure to judicially appreciate evidence — Undue reliance on police reports — Whether findings plainly wrong — Appellate intervention— “Plainly wrong” test 1 malicious prosecution — prosecutorial authority — no unfettered discretion — no basis for immunity from private action — elements of the tort of malicious prosecution — presumption of legality and deference — malice as a separate element — Article 145(3) Federal Constitution 1 Negligence — Duty of care — Contractor carrying out excavation works — Damage to underground cables belonging to utility company — Whether contractor exercised reasonable diligence 1 professional negligence suit commenced by a bank against a property/estate valuer for overvaluing a property resulting a loss to the bank 1 + 23 more

Negligence — Duty of care — Road accident — Tree falling onto federal road — Whether public works department and government liable for failing to maintain or remove dangerous tree within federal road reserve — Whether local authority's statutory powers to trim trees displace federal landowner's common law duty of care — Whether doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable 2 cases

ta-12b-7-04-2025 1. ) RAZLEEN BINTI AWANG (Menuntut sebagai balu yang sah kepada Mohd Amin Bin Ibrahim (simati), untuk gantirugi kesedihan, kehilangan tanggungan dan kerugian perbelanjaan di bawah Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956 (Pindaan) 2. ) XXXX v 1. ) ROADCARE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI TERENGGANU

26 January 2026

ta-12b-8-04-2025 1. ) Nur Zafirah binti Bazaredi 2. ) Norliza binti Mat Hassan v 1. ) Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Terengganu 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) Roadcare (M) Sdn. Bhd.

26 January 2026

Negligence — Res ipsa loquitur — Conditions for application — Tree under exclusive control of defendant authority — Accident of kind not occurring without negligence — Burden of proof shifting to defendant — Failure to provide exculpatory evidence — Inference of negligence drawn 2 cases

26 January 2026

Negligence — Concessionaire — Privatisation agreement — Express exclusion of landscaping works from scope of duties — Whether concessionaire liable for tree maintenance — Contractual duties not extending to third party road users 2 cases

26 January 2026

Kecuaian — Treler muatan luar biasa — Muatan melintang laluan — Tiada lampu amaran — Permit tidak sah — Kegagalan SOP eskot — Prima facie kecuaian — Tanggungjawab lebih tinggi kenderaan berat — Pembahagian liabiliti. Keterangan — Percanggahan saksi — Kebolehpercayaan — Pembayaran saman sebagai pengakuan sokongan. Undang-undang Trafik — Pelanggaran Kaedah 16 Kaedah Lalu Lintas 1959 — Amalan keselamatan muatan besar. Ganti Rugi — Penilaian kuantum — Garis panduan — Kecederaan otak serius — Kos penjagaan masa hadapan — Tiada asas menaikkan kuantum. Prosedur — Rayuan & rayuan silang — Standard campur tangan — Liabiliti diselaraskan 90:10. 2 cases

ba-12b-54-06-2024 1. ) GUNALAN A/L SANKARAN 2. ) MEGALIFT SDN BHD v JOTHILETCHUMI A/P PERIASAMY (Seorang wakil diri litigasi kepada KESAVAN A/L RAJASEKAR seorang yang kurang upaya dan/atau dari segi perubatan seorang yang tidak waras (unsound mind)

9 October 2025

ba-12b-56-06-2024 JOTHILETCHUMI A/P PERIASAMY (Seorang wakil diri litigasi kepada KESAVAN A/L RAJASEKAR seorang yang kurang upaya dan/atau dari segi perubatan seorang yang tidak waras (unsound mind) v 1. ) GUNALAN A/L SANKARAN 2. ) MEGALIFT SDN BHD

9 October 2025

Kecuaian — Kemalangan jalan raya — Liabiliti — Rayuan Sivil — Penilaian semula dapatan fakta — Plaintif mendakwa Defendan memandu secara cuai dan menyebabkan kemalangan — Plaintif mengalami kecederaan parah dan tidak memberi keterangan — Pegawai Penyiasat memberi keterangan berdasarkan siasatan serta dokumen pameran — Mahkamah Sesyen menolak tuntutan Plaintif dan mendapati Plaintif cuai 100% — Rayuan oleh Plaintif terhadap liabiliti — Rayuan balas oleh Defendan-defendan terhadap kuantum gantirugi — Isu sama ada Mahkamah Sesyen tersalah dalam menilai bukti dan membuat dapatan berhubung kecuaian serta liabiliti pihak-pihak — Prinsip campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap dapatan Mahkamah bicara — Tiada kekhilafan jelas (plainly wrong) oleh Mahkamah Sesyen — Mahkamah mendapati Plaintif cuai 100% — Rayuan Plaintif terhadap liabiliti ditolak — Rayuan Defendan-defendan terhadap kuantum juga ditolak — Award gantirugi am dan khas dianggap munasabah dan setimpal — Tiada kesilapan dalam pelaksanaan budibicara oleh Hakim bicara. 2 cases

ja-12b-46-06-2023 KOOGELESWARAN A/L A SOUNDARAJAN - seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut melalui ibunya KALAIVENI A/P THANGIAH sebagai wakil litigasi beliau v 1. ) NORZARINA BINTI ROSLAN 2. ) REDZUAN BIN PONIRIN

27 August 2024

ja-12b-52-07-2023 1. ) NORZARINA BINTI ROSLAN 2. ) REDZUAN BIN PONIRIN v KOOGELESWARAN A/L A SOUNDARAJAN - seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut melalui ibunya KALAIVENI A/P THANGIAH sebagai wakil litigasi beliau

27 August 2024

Conversion — Essential elements — Intentional dealing — Dealing inconsistent with possessory rights — Authorisation — Procurement — Ratification — Adoption — Whether ownership of premises sufficient to establish conversion — Proof of dealing — Circumstantial evidence — Measure of damages — Nominal damages — Value of converted goods — Electricity as subject matter of conversion — Whether issue necessary for determination. 1 case

ma-12bncvc-1-02-2026 LIM KEEM KOK & SONS REALTY SDN. BHD. v TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

8 July 2026

Negligence — Road accident — Quantum of damages — Severe traumatic brain injury — Skull fracture — Post-traumatic epilepsy — Whether awards excessive — Appellate interference with assessment of damages — Loss of earning capacity — Distinction between future earnings and earning capacity — Whether multiplicand-multiplier approach appropriate — Nursing care — Whether medical evidence established lifelong need for nursing assistance — Future pain and suffering for future surgery — Whether award justified. 1 case

da-12b-39-12-2025 1. ) NURUL MUNIRAH BINTI ABDULLAH 2. ) MOHAMAD FAIZA BIN DAUD v SHAHBADRUL AZMI BIN ZULKEFLI

19 May 2026

Damages — Quantum — Road traffic accident — Right below‑knee amputation — Appeal against Sessions Court award — Loss of prospect of marriage — Whether award available to male plaintiff — Loss of earning capacity — Whether real and substantial risk of future disadvantage — Cost of prosthesis — Bionic microprocessor prosthesis v mechanical prosthesis — Principle of restitutio in integrum — Whether socio‑economic background of plaintiff relevant — Appeal allowed in part. 1 case

ta-12b-18-10-2025 MUHAMMAD IRSYAD SYAMIL BIN ABDUL AZIZ v 1. ) AWANG NIZAM BIN JUSOH 2. ) ERDA MARIANI BINTI RUNI

16 May 2026

Accident — Liability — Sessions Court — 100% liability on Defendants 1 case

jb-12bncvc-20-08-2025 SANGAMANAI A/P MACHAP v NG SIEW YEN mendakwa sebagai ibu menurut hukum dan orang tanggungan kepada, KOGILA RAJ A/P RAJA, Simati

15 April 2026

Fitnah — Libel — Penerbitan melalui Facebook — Perkongsian semula posting pihak ketiga — Sama ada publication dibuktikan — Sama ada posting merujuk kepada Plaintif — Sama ada perkataan membawa makna fitnah — Penilaian makna menurut pembaca biasa yang munasabah — Bacaan keseluruhan dan konteks penerbitan — Aduan pengguna dan kritikan terhadap caj rawatan pergigian — Makna fitnah gagal dibuktikan. Tort — Fitnah — Innuendo — Keperluan pliding — Aturan 78 Kaedah 3(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Kegagalan memplidkan fakta luar dan makna tersirat — Sama ada Mahkamah boleh membina sendiri makna fitnah — Innuendo gagal dibuktikan. Tort — Fitnah — Pembelaan — Justifikasi — Komen berpatutan — Perlindungan bersyarat — Seksyen 9 Akta Fitnah 1957 — Posting dalam kumpulan Facebook komuniti pergigian — Isu caj rawatan pergigian dan pengalaman pesakit — Perkara berkepentingan awam atau kepentingan komuniti — Ketiadaan niat jahat — Pembelaan fair comment berjaya. Tort — Malicious falsehood — Tuntutan alternatif — Keperluan membuktikan kepalsuan, niat jahat dan kerugian khusus — Tiada bukti special damage — Tuntutan gagal. Remedi — Gantirugi am — Gantirugi teruk — Gantirugi teladan — Injunksi — Posting dipadam pada hari yang sama — Tiada bukti kerugian reputasi signifikan — Tiada asas injunksi — Tuntutan ditolak sepenuhnya dengan kos RM70,000.00. 1 case

ja-23ncvc-13-09-2021 HONG AN LIANG v CHEW JIA XIN

13 April 2026

Negligence — Road accident — Appeal on quantum — Appellate intervention 1 case

ja-12b-81-11-2025 1. ) ZULKARNIN BIN HUSSEIN 2. ) YAP CONTRACTOR v 1. ) MD RASIDI BIN GAZALI 2. ) NUR AFIKA BINTI AZMAN

9 April 2026

Kecuaian profesional — Peguamcara — Stakeholder — Transaksi jual beli tanah — Pelepasan wang stakeholder — Sama ada peguamcara wajib mematuhi arahan unilateral anak guam — Standard profesional munasabah — Wong Kiong Hung & Anor v Chang Siew Lan & Anor (Appeal) [2009] 4 MLJ 183 — Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 — Toh Theam Hock v Kemajuan Perwira Management Corporation Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 116. Keterangan — Penilaian kredibiliti saksi — Percanggahan antara keterangan lisan dan dokumen kontemporari — Keterangan SP1 dan SD1 — Mahkamah boleh menerima sebahagian keterangan dan menolak bahagian lain — PP v Datuk Haji Harun Haji Idris (No 2) [1976] 1 MLRH 562. Gantirugi — Kausaliti — Ujian but-for — Keterpencilan kerugian — Kehilangan keuntungan projek pecah lot — Kerugian spekulatif — Beban pembuktian — Seksyen 101 dan 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 — Hong Yik Trading Sdn Bhd v Liziz Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 8 CLJ 491 — Majlis Perbandaran Selayang v Suresh Subramaniam [2025] 4 MLJ 303 — Shearn Delamore & Co v Sadacharamani Govindasamy [2018] 3 MLRA 307. 1 case

ja-23ncvc-1-01-2022 REHANA BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) IZZAT BIN MUHTAR 2. ) TETUAN IZZAT MUHTAR & HUDHA

2 April 2026

Negligence — Claim for breach of contract against the First Defendant and negligence against both Defendants, in relation to cracks and delamination of the external plaster walls of the development Sky Loft Premium Suites — Liability of Defendants in construction Sky Loft Premium Suits — Whether Defendants owed duty of care to purchasers of units in Sky Loft Premium Suites —Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to commence this action under Strata Management Act 2013 [Act 757] —Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 [Act 254] — Whether the Defendants are liable in contract and/or negligence — Whether the Defendants owe duty of care to the Plaintiff — Whether the Plaintiff has proven breach duty of care and the breach has caused the damage or harm to the Plaintiff — Whether the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are legally sustainable 1 case

ja-22ncvc-120-07-2022 BADAN PENGURUSAN SKY LOFT PREMIUM SUITES v 1. ) BUKIT INDAH (JOHOR) SDN. BHD. 2. ) KIMLUN SDN. BHD.

3 March 2026

Kemalangan jalan raya — Beban pembuktian — Akta Keterangan 1950 ss 101–102 — Kegagalan plaintif membuktikan penglibatan defendan — Percanggahan keterangan — Dokumen kontemporari — Penilaian kredibiliti saksi — Campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan — Prinsip plainly wrong — Insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence — Kuantum — Taksiran gantirugi bersyarat — Tiada liabiliti — Insurans motor — Rayuan balas penanggung insurans — Remedi deklaratori — Isu akademik — Tiada keperluan deklarasi — Rayuan ditolak — Kos dalam kos 1 case

ja-12b-69-11-2023 KIRUBAKARAN A/L MUNIANDY v 1. ) NADRAJAN A/L CHEN CHIAH 2. ) SUGUMARAN A/L KRISHNAN 3. ) AM GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

22 January 2026

Negligence — Road traffic accident — Road maintenance contractor — Plastic cone on road shoulder — Whether contractor negligent — Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Evidence Act 1950, s 101 Evidence — Evaluation — Conflicting versions — Police reports lodged belatedly — Police reports lodged on same date using similar language — Whether reports orchestrated by third party — Credibility and probative value — Investigating officer’s conclusion based on presumption — Hearsay evidence — Medical records Appeal — Findings of fact — Trial judge’s failure to judicially appreciate evidence — Undue reliance on police reports — Whether findings plainly wrong — Appellate intervention— “Plainly wrong” test 1 case

da-12b-9-04-2025 ROADCARE (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) NIK MUHAMAD ALIF HAIQAL BIN ZULKIFLI KANG 2. ) MUHAMMAD HILMAN HAKIM BIN ABDUL SATAPA

13 December 2025

malicious prosecution — prosecutorial authority — no unfettered discretion — no basis for immunity from private action — elements of the tort of malicious prosecution — presumption of legality and deference — malice as a separate element — Article 145(3) Federal Constitution 1 case

ba-21ncvc-23-06-2024 ANANDA KUMAR A/L S.MAHARAJAH v 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) Nurul Husna Binti Amran 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

9 December 2025

Negligence — Duty of care — Contractor carrying out excavation works — Damage to underground cables belonging to utility company — Whether contractor exercised reasonable diligence 1 case

wa-11bncvc-22-06-2025 KURNIA EKUITI SDN. BHD. v TM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES SDN. BHD.

9 December 2025

professional negligence suit commenced by a bank against a property/estate valuer for overvaluing a property resulting a loss to the bank 1 case

ja-22ncvc-51-03-2020 OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v 1. ) Wong Yee Leck 2. ) Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahman 3. ) Rahim & Co. Chartered Surveyors Sdn. Bhd. 4. ) Loo Kung Hoe 5. ) RAHIM & CO (JOHOR) SDN. BHD

25 November 2025

Negligence — Road traffic accident — Motorcycle colliding with rear left side of car — Whether trial court erred in fixing 100% liability on motorcyclist — Failure of driver to signal before changing lane — Sudden lateral movement — Physical damage pattern corroborating plaintiff’s version — Investigating officer’s independent evidence — Sessions Court’s misdirection — Contributory negligence — Apportionment of liability — Whether 70:30 apportionment justified. 1 case

ta-12b-15-12-2024 AZAHA BIN DERAMAN v Mohd Napi B Abdul Razak & Mohd Hanafi B Hasim

25 November 2025

Misfeasance in public office — Elements of the tort — Abuse of public power by a public officer with targeted malice or reckless indifference to the probability of harm — Failure to prove bad faith, ill-will, or intention to injure — Public officer acting in accordance with official procedure and existing laws — Tort not established. 1 case

w-01ncvcw-180-03-2024 GULAM WAWASAN SDN BHD v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) JABATAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL NEGARA 4. ) Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Bin Mentek, Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan 5. ) ISMAIL BIN MOKHTAR, KETUA EKSEKUTIF SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 6. ) SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING MANAGEMENT CORPOR

20 November 2025

Negligence — Road traffic accident — Damages — Appeal against quantum — Personal injuries — Fractured clavicle with severe complications — Multiple surgical interventions — Wound dehiscence — Permanent functional impairment — Scarring — Future medical expenses — Shoulder brace — Neuropathic pain medication — Contributory negligence — Whether awards manifestly excessive — Whether awards supported by medical evidence — Principles of appellate intervention — Comparable authorities — Compendium as guideline — Application of legal principles to assessment of general and special damages — Cross-appeal for enhancement of damages and additional claim for spinal injury — Burden of proving causation — Whether claim for spinal injury established on balance of probabilities — Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal allowed in part. 1 case

ta-12b-14-11-2024 A.AIDIP BIN A.ZAIDI v 1. ) ZARIF ZAHIRUDDIN BIN ZALI 2. ) ZAITON BINTI ISMAIL

15 November 2025

Negligence — Road traffic accident — Liability not in issue — Appeal on quantum Damages — Assessment — Loss of consciousness — Mild traumatic brain injury — Modest enhancement Damages — Assessment — Shoulder impingement — Functional limitation — Award enhanced Damages — Special damages — Physiotherapy — Strict proof — Award affirmed Damages — Future medical expenses — Arcoxia — Speculative claim — Duty to mitigate — Claim dismissed Appeal — Appellate restraint — Limited interference with quantum 1 case

ba-12b-12-02-2025 1. ) MOORTHY A/L MUNIANDY 2. ) PRAVIN RAO A/L MOORTHY v NITHYANANTAN A/L YASUDABER

11 November 2025

Conspiracy to injure — Unlawful means conspiracy — Elements to prove — Combination, intention to injure, unlawful acts, resultant loss — Suspicious sequence of events insufficient — Evidence falling short of proving concerted agreement on balance of probabilities — Distinction between commercial opportunism and targeted conspiracy 1 case

wa-22ncc-785-10-2023 EXELLE MEDICAL SDN. BHD. v 1. ) MK MEDILANCE SDN. BHD. 2. ) INTERMEDECO SDN. BHD. 3. ) CHIN KEH JOO

9 November 2025

Conspiracy (unlawful means) — Elements — Agreement — Intention to injure — Overt acts — Damage — Strict pleading requirements — Familial relationship — Whether sufficient to infer conspiracy Pleading — Fraud and dishonesty — Strict particularisation — General allegations insufficient — Inference versus fact — Failure to plead dishonesty, assistance and causal link 1 case

wa-22ncc-696-10-2024 1. ) ECO-BUILD PTE LTD 2. ) PETRA ECO-BUILD (AUST) PTY LTD 3. ) ECO BUILD MODULAR SDN BHD v 1. ) AMREEK SINGH DHILLON 2. ) SUSHIL SINGH SIDHU 3. ) LEUNG KOK KEONG 4. ) TAN YAN SHIOU 5. ) CHU HUI PENG 6. ) SIMREN KAUR DHILLON 7. ) RAJWANT SINGH A/L G NERANJAN SINGH 8. ) STEFAN MAHIR ALDJUFRI 9. ) RiBT GLOBAL SDN BHD 10. ) PT RISJADSON BHUMI NUSANTARA

22 October 2025

Vicarious liability — Whether landlord can be held vicariously liable for acts of tenant — Applicability of close connection test — Whether landlord-tenant relationship sufficient to impose liability 1 case

wa-22ncvc-174-03-2025 1. ) GENERALI INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) TAKAFUL IKHLAS GENERAL BERHAD 3. ) SS MOTOR CENTURY SDN. BHD. v 1. ) WAWASAN SINAR GEMILANG SDN. BHD. 2. ) Kua Guan Chai 3. ) Phun Booi Mooi

7 October 2025

Conspiracy — Conspiracy to injure — Elements of conspiracy — Requirement of knowledge and intent for co-signatory of cheques 1 case

wa-12bncc-16-06-2023 1. ) TAN TEE HUI 2. ) Soon Siew Ling v DE FOOD CREATOR SDN BHD

24 September 2025

Negligence — Prison authority — Death in custody — Suicide — No foreseeable risk — No liability — Appeal dismissed 1 case

j-01ncvcw-163-03-2023 SUSHILA RANI A/P RAMASAMY v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara Kluang

23 September 2025

negligence — vehicle chassis number tempered with — what is the standard of reasonable care of PUSPAKOM in inspecting the car — whether PUSPAKOM ought to carry out tests beyond visual inspection. 1 case

da-12b-19-05-2023 PUSAT PEMERIKSAAN KENDERAAN BERKOMPUTER (PUSPAKOM) v 1. ) Sufrin Bin Mansor 2. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 3. ) FOCAL PARK SDN BHD

17 September 2025

Key Statutes

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

cited in 72 cases

Rules of Court 2012

cited in 50 cases

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

cited in 18 cases

Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)

cited in 15 cases

Federal Constitution

cited in 14 cases

Evidence Act

cited in 13 cases

National Land Code

cited in 13 cases

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

cited in 10 cases

Civil Law Act 1956

cited in 9 cases

Penal Code (Cap 574)

cited in 9 cases

Capital Markets and Services Act 2007

cited in 5 cases

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

cited in 5 cases

Road Transport Act 1987 (Cap 333)

cited in 4 cases

Bills of Exchange Act 1949

cited in 4 cases

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

cited in 4 cases

Court Distribution

MYHC 331 MYCOA 52 MYFC 17

Key People & Firms

How many Tort cases are reported in Malaysia courts?

400 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Tort.

What torts appear most often in this area?

Negligence is central, alongside defamation, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and the intentional torts. Recurring questions include the scope of the duty of care, vicarious and non-delegable liability, and the accountability of public officers and institutions.

How do the courts approach vicarious and non-delegable duties?

The judgments apply the "close connection" and "course of employment" tests to decide when an employer answers for an employee's wrong, and they recognise a non-delegable duty that can make a party responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor, for example the duty a homeowner may owe in respect of contracted work.

What is required for a claim of misfeasance in public office?

The collection describes misfeasance as requiring an abuse of public power by a public officer with targeted malice or reckless indifference to the probable harm. Related claims for false imprisonment and for a death in custody raise the award of exemplary and aggravated damages against the authorities found responsible.