SUSHILA RANI A/P RAMASAMY 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara Kluang

SUSHILA RANI A/P RAMASAMY 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara Kluang

The Court affirmed the High Court: although a duty of care existed, the respondents did not breach it because the deceased's suicide was not reasonably foreseeable from his history while in custody, there was no evidence of third party involvement or access to the cell, and coroner's inquest findings do not bind the civil court; accordingly the respondents are not liable in negligence or vicariously.

Citation
J-01(NCvC)(W)-163-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Sushila Rani a/p Ramasamy; Respondent/defendant: Kerajaan Malaysia; Respondent/defendant: Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia; Respondent/defendant: Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara (Kluang)
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 September 2025
Case Number
J-01(NCvC)(W)-163-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (negligence/dependency Claim) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Trial Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care in Custody, Foreseeability of Suicide, Vicarious Liability, Admissibility and Effect of Coroner's Inquest
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Law Prison/custodial Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury/dependency Claims Duty of Care in Custody Foreseeability of Suicide Vicarious Liability Admissibility and Effect of Coroner's Inquest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sushila Rani a/p Ramasamy

Appellant/plaintiff

Kerajaan Malaysia

Respondent/defendant

Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia

Respondent/defendant

Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara (Kluang)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (negligence/dependency Claim) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prison authority breached its duty of care to prevent the inmate's suicide
  2. 2 Whether the inmate's suicide was foreseen or reasonably foreseeable such that a duty to prevent arose
  3. 3 Whether the coroner's inquest finding binds the civil court

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the High Court: although a duty of care existed, the respondents did not breach it because the deceased's suicide was not reasonably foreseeable from his history while in custody, there was no evidence of third party involvement or access to the cell, and coroner's inquest findings do not bind the civil court; accordingly the respondents are not liable in negligence or vicariously.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs