KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man who has Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) over allegations of bullying at a special education secondary school when he was a teenager.
In his suit, which was filed on May 26, 2017, the plaintiff said he was placed in a classroom of a government vocational school for special children without the school first checking his learning disabilities.
He claimed he was bullied by other students and even had his belongings stolen.
The plaintiff, now 25, claimed no action had been taken.
In her decision, Justice Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad said that the court found that there was no evidence of bullying that took place as claimed by the plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time of filing the suit in 2017.
Justice Nik Hasmat found that there were no direct witnesses to the incidents as claimed by the plaintiff.
“There was no evidence of fighting, even from the police investigation.
“The incidents of bullying have not been proven,” she said yesterday.
Justice Nik Hasmat remarked that if the plaintiff’s adoptive mother had been unhappy with the son’s situation at the school, the next option was to withdraw him from the school.
“But the son remained there. The claims are unsubstantiated.
“On the whole, in the entirety of the evidence, I have to dismiss the plaintiff’s entire claim,” she said.
The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay RM10,000 in costs.
In his suit, the plaintiff said he was placed in a classroom of a government vocational school for special children without the school first checking his learning disabilities.
He claimed that he was bullied several times by other students when he was at the school hostel, including being spat at while he was praying, being tied to his bed, being punched and kicked, and having his belongings stolen.
The plaintiff, now 25, claimed that no action was taken by the school and its principal despite numerous complaints lodged.
He filed the lawsuit through his adoptive mother and named the special education secondary school, the government, the school principal, and the Education Ministry as defendants.
The plaintiff also sought a declaration that the failure to provide a system to categorise special needs students according to their learning disabilities is a breach of Article 12 of the Federal Constitution and Section 28 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.
Lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo represented the plaintiff and his mother, while federal counsel Safiyyah Omar represented the defendants.
In its defence, the school stated that the placement of the student concerned was made based on the choice made by the boy and his adoptive mother during registration.
