Muhammad Adam Yusoff Abdul Hafiz & Anor v Sekolah Menengah Pendidikan Khas Vokasional Seksyen 17 Shah Alam & Ors

Appellant(s): Xxxx

Respondent(s):

• Xxxx
• Sazali Bin Mohd Karli (Selaku Pengetua Defendan Pertama)

• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin

• The first appellant, a registered person with disabilities (OKU) suffering from ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome, and a physical impairment, was enrolled in the first respondent's special education school and boarding facility.
• The appellants initiated a claim against the school, its principal, the Ministry of Education, and the Government of Malaysia for alleged breach of duty of care leading to physical and verbal assaults on the first appellant.
• They also contended that the respondents failed to provide proper education and facilities consistent with the standards required for special needs students under the Federal Constitution and the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008.

• Whether the respondents breached their common law duty of care by failing to ensure the safety and well-being of the first appellant, resulting in alleged incidents of assault and bullying.
• Whether the appellants had sufficiently proven the actual occurrence of the alleged verbal and physical assaults on the first appellant on a balance of probabilities.
• Whether the respondents failed to provide quality education and appropriate facilities for special needs students, thereby infringing Article 12 of the Federal Constitution and Section 28 of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the appellants failed to prove the alleged bullying incidents on a balance of probabilities.
• The Court found that the first appellant, the alleged victim, did not testify, rendering the second appellant's account and the first appellant's journal entries inadmissible as hearsay.
• The Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish a breach of duty of care by the respondents or a failure to provide appropriate special education standards, noting that some educational policy matters are unsuited for judicial evaluation.