The Court of Appeal dismissed the former student’s leave to appeal after she failed to meet the required criteria to reinstate her lawsuit.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by a former student of a Chinese Independent school to reinstate her lawsuit for breach of statutory duty against the Director-General (DG) of the Ministry of Education and the Government over an alleged bullying incident at the school.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, who chaired the panel, together with Datin Paduka Evrol Mariette Peters and Datuk Nazarin Wok Nordin, held that the applicant had failed to satisfy the criteria required for her leave to appeal application to be granted.
The court ordered her to pay RM20,000 in costs.
The former student, through her father filed the lawsuit at the Sessions Court in 2023 against several parties, including her alleged assailant, the school assistant head and head of Discipline Department, the school’s principal and vice principal, the Director-General (DG) of the Education Ministry and the government of Malaysia, over an assault incident occurred in the classroom.
The teenager, formerly a student of a school in Kuala Lumpur, claimed that a male classmate had struck her forcefully on her head in 2022 causing her to suffer serious injuries.
Her father subsequently lodged a bullying complaint on the Ministry of Education Malaysia’s website, seeking action over the incident, however, the ministry responded that the matter had been resolved by the school.
The teenager claimed that the Education Ministry’s Director-General owed her a statutory duty of care and, alternatively, was vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the school’s disciplinary personnel and management, namely the Assistant Head of the Discipline Department, Head of the Discipline Department, principal, and vice principal.
On May 5, last year, the Sessions Court allowed an application by the Education Ministry DG and the government to strike out the suit, after it held that both the Ministry and the Government were not the employers of the school’s staff and were not vicariously liable for any negligence allegedly committed by the other defendants.
The court held that the registration of the school and its staff under the Education Act 1996 did not transform the school which is a private educational institution, into a government institution. It found the school remained a private institution with its administration, management, and maintenance carried out by a private body, which was also responsible for appointing and paying its staff.
The court further ruled that the control and supervision exercised by the Ministry of Education over private schools were part of the ministry’s responsibilities as a government ministry to ensure that private schools were regulated and aligned with the requirements and direction of the national education system.
The teenager later appealed to the Court of Appeal after the High Court dismissed her appeal on Dec 22 last year.
Her counsel Lim Jia Qing, assisted by co-counsel Lo Jia Yi, argued that Chinese Independent schools fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and that the Government should be held liable for failing to take action.
However, Senior Federal Counsel Liew Horng Bin, representing the Ministry and the Government, argued that Chinese Independent schools do not fall under the ministry’s jurisdiction.
“If they are indeed private schools as defined under our law, then they must follow the national curriculum and students must sit for SPM,” he said, adding that those schools have their own syllabus and examinations.
Liew, assisted by Federal Counsel Anis Najwa Nazari, said police had investigated the complaint but later classified the case as “no further action”, adding that to say the government did not take any action is incorrect.
