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

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们