SHAH ALAM: Fifty residents of Taman Sri Muda won a lawsuit against the government and several public authorities over the devastating floods that struck the area in December 2021.
Judicial Commissioner Shoba Rajah Dorai Rajah found the first to sixth and 10th defendants liable for negligence and related failures arising from the floods, according to the grounds of decision shared with the media on Tuesday (Sept 29).
The Shah Alam High Court held that the plaintiffs had established liability in full, fixing it at 100 per cent against the defendants jointly and severally.
The defendants comprised the director-general of the National Disaster Management Agency (Nadma), the director-general of the Malaysian Meteorological Department (MetMalaysia), the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Special Affairs), the environment and water minister, as well as the Government of Malaysia.
The court also found the director of the Selangor Department of Irrigation and Drainage (JPS), Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) jointly liable with the Federal Government.
The court held that once a public authority undertook responsibility for disaster management, weather monitoring, drainage infrastructure or flood-control operations, it was required to perform those functions with reasonable care and competence.
The court found that the authorities owed the residents an operational duty of care and that their public functions did not give them general immunity from claims arising from operational negligence.
The court also rejected the defendants’ contention that the extreme rainfall constituted an "Act of God”, holding that heavy rainfall and flooding were foreseeable natural events in a tropical country.
The court said it was insufficient to establish that the rainfall was exceptionally severe or exceeded the original design capacity of the drainage and flood-control infrastructure.
The defendants had to show that the event was so unprecedented that no reasonable foresight, preparation or operational response could have guarded against the resulting harm.
On Selangor JPS, the court found that the department had a continuing operational duty to manage, maintain and operate flood-control infrastructure with reasonable competence.
It found that the management of pumping facilities directly contributed to the retention of floodwaters.
As for MBSA, the court held that although the principal flood-control assets belonged to JPS, this did not extinguish MBSA’s separate and independent responsibilities as the local authority.
The court further found that MBSA’s reliance on an outdated development plan, without a sufficient contemporary risk assessment, amounted to planning negligence and a breach of duty.
The court accepted the plaintiffs’ reliance on the principle of material contribution, ruling that they did not have to prove that a single failure by one defendant caused all the flood damage.
Instead, the combined acts and omissions of the responsible authorities materially contributed to their losses.
The severe rainfall did not break the chain of causation because operational failures had worsened the situation, delayed the removal of floodwaters or materially increased the damage.
The court fixed Oct 6 for case management to set a hearing date for the assessment of damages.
The 50 residents were represented by lawyers James Joshua Paulraj, Regine Ng, Ahmad Badri Mustaffa, M Gobinath and P Taneswaran.
Senior federal counsel Al-Saifi Hashim, Nurul Farhana Khalid and Liew Horng Bin appeared for the Federal Government, while state legal counsel Faris Shah Kamarulzaman and lawyer Norazalina Hairuddin represented JPS and MBSA respectively.- Bernama
