KUALA LUMPUR: A former student of a special education school who lost his lawsuit against the school and three others over bullying claims has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The then-19-year-old student who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) filed the notice of appeal through Messrs Karpal Singh & Co on Tuesday (Feb 14).
In the notice, he stated that he was unsatisfied with the entirety of the decision by High Court judge Justice Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad.
Lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo, who represented the former student, confirmed the filing when contacted by the press.
On Feb 3, Justice Nik Hasmat dismissed the former student's lawsuit with costs of RM10,000.
In her decision, she said the court found there was nothing to prove bullying took place as claimed by the plaintiff and found that there were no direct witnesses to the incidents as claimed by the plaintiff.
The court also found that the plaintiff was unsuccessful in proving that there was a breach of law pertaining to alleged negligence on the part of the defendants.
In his suit 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 that he was bullied several times by other students when he was at the school hostel, including being spit at while he was praying, tied to his bed, 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 the defendants.
In the statement of claim, the teenager, who was diagnosed with ADHD when he was four years old and also has leg problems that make it difficult for him to sit on the floor, claimed that he was registered at the special education secondary school on Jan 18, 2016 and was placed at the school hostel.
Prior to that, he was a student at a normal secondary school and his education level was only at kindergarten level.
He claimed that he was placed in a classroom without the school first checking what his learning disabilities were and that the school did not have the facilities or system to categorise students based on their condition.
The plaintiff sought, among others, 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.
In its defence, the school stated that the placement of the student was made based on the choice made by the boy and his adoptive mother during registration.
