Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

TORT – DUTY OF CARE – BREACH OF DUTY

In brief

  •  Multiple incidences have occurred in Malaysia when detainees have tragically died as a result of police misconduct. The main question here is whether or not the police officer has a duty of care to the convict. Detaining authorities have a duty of care to ensure that detainees are healthy and get adequate medical treatment while incarcerated. There is also a responsibility to ensure that prisoners are not hurt by detaining authorities or other convicts, or that they do not self-harm or commit suicide.

Has the police officer been assigned a duty of care?

  •  Legal authorities have well-written this duty of care. The duty of care of prison officials, for example, is defined by Halsbury’s Laws of England, an authority on English law, as “the duty to take reasonable care for the safety of all who are within the jail, including the inmates.”. As a result, the general duties of a police officer towards the public are outlined in Section 20 of the Police Act Malaysia 1967.
  •  Actions will be taken, for example, if a prisoner is injured by another prisoner as a result of the prison authorities’ negligent supervision, with greater care and supervision being required of a prisoner known to be potentially at greater risk than other prisoners, to the extent that is reasonable and practicable, or if a prisoner is negligently put to work in health-damaging conditions; or if inadequately instructed in the use of machinery; or if a prisoner is injure by another prisoner.
  •  In the case of Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar & Ors v N Indra Nallathamby & Others [2014] 9 CLJ 15 CA, the Court of Appeal made unambiguous statements on the police authorities’ duty of care in the instance of a detainee’s death while in police custody. To say the least, the police’s behaviour was terrible in this case. In this case, the victim died after being beaten by police officers. “The police force is a public professional body, and there are duties of care in the performance of its powers, just as there are in other professional organisations,” the Court of Appeal said. It is their standard operating procedure (SOP) in the framework of the police force, and it should be scrutinised by a court of law.

Is it possible for me to sue for damages if my husband died in jail as a result of police misconduct?

  •  There are a few different sorts of damages that you can sue for. To begin, you can bring a dependency claim for loss of support against the defendant under the Civil Law Act, section 7(3)(iv). This only occurs when your spouse is the family’s sole breadwinner.
  •  Moving on, as the deceased’s widow, she is entitled to a claim for damages for bereavement under the Civil Law Act’s sections 7(3) and (3B). In addition, under section 7(3)(ii) of the Civil Law Act, the court may grant funeral expenses.
  •  Furthermore, as the deceased’s widow, you are also able to claim damages for pain and suffering if evidence shows that from the time of the arrest till the time of the death, the deceased has gone through pain and suffering during this period. In the case of Janagi a/p Nadarajah (joint estate administrator and dependent of Benedict a/l Thanilas, deceased) & Anor v Sjn Razali bin Budin & Ors [2022] 8 MLJ 820 [HC], where her husband was detained by a police officer in a jail and tragically died because the defendants failed to provide him with the necessary care and medication. The defendants’ failure to do so aggravated the deceased’s illness and caused him anguish and suffering, which ultimately led to his death.
  •  Lastly, plaintiffs are entitled to aggravated damages as a result of the defendants’ carelessness and omissions, which caused the plaintiffs anguish and suffering.

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
en_USEN