TONY PUA KIAM WEE v. GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA & ANOTHER APPEAL
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ, AHMAD MAAROP PCA, AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA), ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ, ROHANA YUSUF FCJ, MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ, NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: 01(i)-44-11-2018(W) & 02(i)-111-11-2018(W)]
19 NOVEMBER 2019
[2019] CLJ JT (8)

TORT:Misfeasance in public office - Cause of action - Claim against former Prime Minister ('PM') - Whether PM 'public officer' - Whether definition of 'public officer' excludes members of administration - Whether common law tort of misfeasance in public office applicable in Malaysia - Whether limited by definition of 'public officer' in s. 3 of Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 ('IA') read together with arts. 132 and 160 of Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether there is express legislative intent in FC or IA to abrogate common law definition of 'public officer' - Whether application of definition under s. 3 of IA contrary to s. 2 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 ('GPA') - Whether would render Government immune from suit - Whether GPA provides for vicarious liability

TORT: Misfeasance in public office - Cause of action - Claim against former Prime Minister ('PM') - Allegation that PM abused public office for personal benefit - Claim by taxpayer - Whether elements of tort established - Whether 'antecedent legal right or interest' and 'proximity' established - Whether funds claimed to be dishonestly abused or dissipated were public funds - Whether taxpayer had requisite locus standi to commence proceedings - Whether losses pleaded sufficient to constitute valid cause of action

WORDS & PHRASES: 'public officer' - Whether definition of 'public officer' excludes members of administration - Whether common law tort of misfeasance in public office applicable in Malaysia - Whether limited by definition of 'public officer' in s. 3 of Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 ('IA') read together with arts. 132 and 160 of Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether there is express legislative intent in FC or IA to abrogate common law definition of 'public officer' - Whether application of definition under s. 3 of IA contrary to s. 2 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 ('GPA') - Whether would render Government immune from suit - Whether GPA provides for vicarious liability