Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Foreseeability

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2025

1. ) LOI JIA WEN 2. ) WONG WAI FOONG 3. ) HOOI JIA HAO NICKY 4. ) HOOI MUN YEE STELLA 5. ) TEE YEOW KING 6. ) QUEK SZE CHEONG 7. ) LOH TENG SHUI (menuntut untuk dirinya sendiri dan menurut Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 sebagai bap

Citation

BA-22NCvC-429-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-429-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to determine the three questions of law was dismissed because the existence and scope of any duty of care, the question of novus actus in the chain of causation and the commencement of the limitation period are fact‑dependent; material factual disputes exist and therefore the questions cannot be resolved summarily under Order 14A or Order 33 Rule 2.
30 May 2024

R.RAJASEGHARAN A/L R.RAKAPPAN 1. ) PENGARAH MUZIUM DIRAJA, KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN MUZIUM MALAYSIA 3. ) MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PERPADUAN NEGARA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-A71-6-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A71-6-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tree posed an apparent or foreseeable danger and that the Defendants negligently caused the damage; additionally special damages were not sufficiently pleaded or proven and documentary evidence was discrepant; therefore Defendants not liable and claim dismissed.
22 Jan 2024

KALIAMMAH A/P SEGARAN QUADRANT ELITE FORCE SDN BHD

Citation

BF-A53-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BF-A53-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant owed a duty of care to its employee; it breached that duty by leaving a Rottweiler in the deceased's care without trained supervision or proper arrangements despite foreseeability that the dog would react to strangers; the breach caused the bite and ensuing fatal septic shock; Plaintiff's claims were proven and awards of dependency RM108,000, bereavement RM30,000 and funeral RM5,000 were appropriate.
28 Jun 2023

TM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES SDN BHD (yang telah mengambilalih hak-hak, asset-aset dan liabiliti-liabiliti TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD melalui Perintah bertarikh 21.2.2023) 1. ) SALAHUDDIN BIN SAAD (rakan kongsi yang menjalankan perkongsian di bawah

Citation

AB-A72NCvC-27-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-A72NCvC-27-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities plaintiff failed to prove defendants or the third party breached their duty of care; both defendants and third party took reasonable and standard precautions (notice, site visit with plaintiff representative, excavation of pilot holes to 1.5m) and there was no reasonable foreseeability of plaintiff's buried fiber cables in the absence of warning tape and specific confirmation; plaintiff's own failures (wrong representative, non‑compliant burial depth and no warning tape) were causative; res ipsa loquitur did not apply.
28 Feb 2023

SUSHILA RANI A/P RAMASAMY Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

JA-21NCvC-14-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-14-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove defendants breached any duty of care because credible forensic and eyewitness evidence established the death was self‑inflicted hanging, there was no history or indicators that the deceased was a suicide risk so suicide was not reasonably foreseeable, and there was no reliable evidence of foul play; coroner's inquest findings are not binding in civil proceedings and cannot substitute for proof of negligence, therefore claim dismissed.
31 Jan 2022

CLEARPATH MARKETING SDN BHD MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-168-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-168-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Homing Pigeon agreements void or sham under s57 Contracts Act 1950 and, in any event, the alleged losses derived from those agreements were too remote, unforeseeable and unpleaded; special damages were not strictly proved; therefore the Plaintiff's claims for damages failed and were dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
10 Nov 2020

1. JALALUDDIN BIN MOHD ZIN 2. MASROHA BINTI ABD RAHIM 1. TAN HAR YOU 2. TAN KAR WEE

Citation

JB-12BNCVC-11-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12BNCVC-11-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that operating a licensed food stall at a location different from the registered/main business address did not render the business illegal and that the stall location did not contribute to the accident; the driver’s loss of control was the sole cause and Respondents must bear 100% liability; the Sessions Court’s apportionment (20% Appellants, 80% Respondents) was set aside with quantum affirmed.
11 Oct 2020

KAMARUDDIN BIN MAT NASIR 1. SAHAR BANNU BINTI MOHAMAD 2. SEKOLAH MENENGAH KEBANGSAAN TENGKU INDERA PETRA 2 3. PENGARAH PENDIDIKAN NEGERI KELANTAN 4. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

DA-21NCVC-16-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCVC-16-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that school authorities owed a duty of care to the pupil, that they breached that duty by failing to ensure a known-broken and dangerous basketball goalpost was removed or rendered safe, that the presence of the dangerous equipment made the risk of injury reasonably foreseeable irrespective of which game was being played, and that on the balance of probabilities the defendants' breach caused the pupil's fatal head injury; the defendants were 100% liable, vicariously where applicable, and damages were awarded accordingly.
18 Nov 2019

ZAHIDAH BINTI ABDUL KARIM & ROSLAN BIN KHALID TEO YEK MING

Citation

WA-24NCVC-37-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-37-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that despite the damages not being expressly pleaded in the originating summons, the subsidiary assessment application (Enc.6) was properly entertained; the defendant had wrongfully lodged the caveat and the plaintiffs proved loss on a balance of probabilities; using Alliance Bank's reserve valuation of RM6,000,000 as the comparable figure, the diminution to the actual sale price RM4,530,000 warranted damages of RM1,470,000 to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and RM107,232 to the 3rd plaintiff; exemplary damages were not awarded.