The Firm recently acted for an international school (“the School”) in Kuala Lumpur in opposing an interim mandatory injunction sought by a Year 9 student (“the Student”) following his expulsion from the School. Following internal investigations, the Student was expelled for circulating deepfake images (“the Images”) of female students and also extorting money from the “creator” of the Images by threatening exposure. Dissatisfied with the School’s decision, the Student challenged the expulsion and applied for an interim mandatory injunction, compelling the School to reinstate him as a student with no loss of benefits, rights and privileges pending disposal of the action.
The application for mandatory injunction was dismissed by the High Court on the following grounds: –
1. Wrong Legal Test for Mandatory Injunction
The Student sought for a mandatory injunction and therefore the correct test would be the “unusually strong and clear” test and not the test propounded in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor Bin Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193. The Student in moving the injunction applied the Keet Gerald test which was the wrong test and thus did not meet the high threshold of the test as required and was not able to show a real likelihood of success at trial.
2. No Breach of Natural Justice
The School as an educational institution was not required to comply with the strict standards of formal investigations applicable to a tribunal. The students involved were given the opportunity to provide statements and explain themselves. Imposing higher disciplinary compliance standards on schools would inhibit them from carrying out their functions and maintaining order.
3. Evidence of Extortion Remained Unrebutted
There was an element of extortion leading to the expulsion, which the Student failed to rebut. He also did not accept responsibility and continued to challenge the facts despite contradictory evidence.
4. Risk of Harm to Affected Students
Granting the injunction would cause real, serious and irreparable harm to the affected students, who were victims of the Images. The School’s paramount duty of care to ensure a safe environment for all students and the School community was a significant consideration.
5. No Irreparable Harm to the Student
Refusing the injunction would not cause irreparable harm to the Student, particularly as the School had undertaken to assist him in applying to enrol in a new school.
Conclusion
The decision underscores the Court’s recognition of a school’s duty to act decisively in safeguarding its students. It also affirms that, in the context of school disciplinary processes, the requirements of fairness must be applied in a manner appropriate to the institution’s educational role.
The decision also reflects the Court’s balancing of the Student’s interest in continuing his education against the School’s duty to protect the wider student body and maintain a safe learning environment. Unlike the Plaintiff in Jakob Renner & Ors v. Scott King, Chairman of Board of Directors of the International School of Kuala Lumpur [2000] 5 MLJ 254, whose only “fault” was his disability, the present case concerned serious misconduct by the Student with no comparable denial of access to education.
The School was represented by our Partner, Janice Anne Leo and Senior Associate, Adrienne Sena, with the assistance of our Pupil-in-Chambers, Allysha Ronald.