AIBAF V MFBE  (Father And Next Of Kin To ASHBMF) & Ors And Another Appeal [2024] 3 MLJ 192

Federal Court (Putrajaya)

 Tort — Assault and battery — Evidence

1. The Appellant, AIBAF, was a student at a high school in Malaysia, a residential school in Kuala Terengganu. On the night of 26 April 2015, between 10.40 p.m. and 2.00 a.m., the Appellant was taken to the Bilik Asrama Ketua Pengawas by five of his schoolmates, all senior students where he was physically assaulted and beaten repeatedly. During the incident, both the Ketua Pengawas and Penolong Ketua Pengawas were present in the room but failed to intervene or stop the assault.
2. As a result of the attack, the Appellant sustained serious injuries, including a perforated right eardrum, which led to permanent hearing loss of the right ear. Out of fear of retaliation, he did not report the incident immediately. The next morning, he noticed bleeding from his ear and informed the school warden without disclosing the cause. He sought treatment at a local clinic and was later referred to a hospital, where medical examination confirmed the ear injury.
3. A police report was lodged on 30 April 2015, and on 27 April 2016, the five assailants were charged under section 323 of the Penal Code, read together with section 34, for causing hurt to the Appellant. On 1 June 2016, they pleaded guilty before the Magistrates’ court and were released on a two-year good behaviour bond of RM1,000 under section 173A of the Criminal Procedure Code, with no formal conviction recorded.
4. The school took disciplinary action against the assailants – four were suspended for two weeks, while one was expelled but later transferred to another school on appeal. Representatives of the school attempted to settle the matter privately by offering RM1,000 in compensation, but the Appellant and his family rejected the offer. Traumatized and unable to focus on his studies, the Appellant requested a transfer to another school.
5. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a civil suit in the High Court against the five assailants for assault and battery. He also sued the school’s principal, the senior assistant for student affairs, the Director-General of Education, and the Government of Malaysia, alleging that they were vicariously liable for failing to protect him from harm while he was under their care and supervision.
6. After a full trial, the High Court found all Defendants/Respondents liable, holding that the assault was proven and that the school and Government authorities had breached their duty of care. The Court awarded the Appellant general and special damages, along with exemplary damages of RM120,000. The Defendants/Respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, ruling that the evidence was insufficient and that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable.
7. The Appellant then appealed to the Federal Court, seeking to restore the High Court’s findings on both liability and quantum of damages.

1. Whether the guilty pleas of the student assailants in the Magistrates’ court were admissible and relevant evidence in the appellant’s civil claim for assault and battery?
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant had been assaulted by the five student defendants?
3. Whether bullying and physical assault in a residential school were reasonably foreseeable events, thereby giving rise to a duty of care owed by the school and Government?
4. Whether the Government of Malaysia was vicariously liable for the negligence and omissions of the school authorities?

(1)  Whether the guilty pleas of the student assailants in the Magistrates’ court were admissible and relevant evidence in the appellant’s civil claim for assault and battery?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that the guilty pleas were admissible and relevant under sections 21 and 31 of the Evidence Act 1950.

(b) The Federal Court explained that although no conviction was recorded under section 173A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the admissions of guilt remained relevant to show the fact that the assault took place.

(c)  The Federal Court opined that –

“The admissions were not introduced for the purpose of proving the fact of conviction under section 323, but to show that such admissions existed.” (paras [27]–[29]).

(d) The Federal Court emphasized that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but remain relevant until proven otherwise. The Court found that the trial judge correctly relied on the pleas of guilt as part of the narrative and that the Court of Appeal erred in disregarding them.

(2)  Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant had been assaulted by the five student defendants?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the affirmative,  holding that there was ample and credible evidence proving that the assault had occurred. This included the admissions of the assailants made before the Magistrates’ Court, their written confessions in school disciplinary proceedings, and corroborating medical evidence from attending doctors who confirmed injuries consistent with blunt force trauma.

(b) The Federal Court affirmed that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges who had the “audio-visual advantage” of observing witnesses firsthand. (para [34])

(c)  The Federal Court held that –

“Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeal, the learned trial judge’s findings were correct on the facts and in law.” (para [36])

 

(3)  Whether bullying and physical assault in a residential school were reasonably foreseeable events, thereby giving rise to a duty of care owed by the school and Government?

(a) The Federal Court held in the affirmative, that bullying and physical assaults were reasonably foreseeable in residential schools. The Court observed that regular spot checks and the presence of anti-bullying posters provided by the Ministry of Education showed that the risk of such incidents was well within the reasonable contemplation of school authorities. (paras [44]–[45])

(b) The Federal Court took the view that –

“Since it was reasonably foreseeable that bullying would occur in residential schools, and the appellant was indeed bullied and assaulted by his fellow students, the respondents owed a duty of care to keep him safe from harm.” (para [47])

(c)  Accordingly, the sixth to ninth respondents, being the school authorities and the Government, were held to have breached their duty of care by failing to prevent the assault.

(4)  Whether the Government of Malaysia was vicariously liable for the negligence and omissions of the school authorities?

(a) The Federal Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the Government was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the principal, senior assistant, and Director-General of Education. These officers were agents through whom the Government discharged its duties relating to education and student welfare.

(b) The Federal Court determined that –

“The Government remains in control of these persons, including the students, and is thus responsible and liable for their acts and omissions.” (para [48])

(c)  The Federal Court emphasized that residential schools impose a higher standard of supervision and accountability, and failure to maintain safety renders the Government liable in both a vicarious and direct capacity.

1. The Federal Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, and restored the High Court’s findings and damages. The Court confirmed that all Defendants/Respondents, including the Government, were liable for the Appellant’s injuries. Costs of RM150,000 were awarded to the appellant.

1. Admissions of guilt in criminal proceedings, even without conviction, are admissible in civil cases as relevant evidence.
2. Schools owe a broad duty of care to protect students from foreseeable harm, including bullying and assault by peers. Failure to supervise and prevent such incidents can render school authorities and the Government vicariously liable.
3. The case reinforces accountability of educational institutions for student safety within residential settings.