BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA & ORS v. NOOR DELLHAN YAHAYA (POLICE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF DANG WANGI POLICE DISTRICT) & ORS
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
CHOO KAH SING JCA 
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN JCA
LIM HOCK LENG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(NCVC)(W)-188-04-2025]
21 OCTOBER 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (16)

Abstract – (i) The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 ('PAA') embraces the right of all citizens to organise assemblies or to participate in assemblies, peacefully and without arms. This right is subject to only the express restrictions in s. 4(1) of the PAA. Section 9(1) of the PAA lays down a procedural requirement. By virtue of the definition of s. 3 of the PAA, a number of persons can effectuate an assembly in a public place as of right. The mere statutory duty of a Local Authority to control, which corresponds to 'regulate', and care, which corresponds to 'maintain', a public place cannot equate to the legal status of an occupier. Such a flawed premise collapses under its own weight when tested against other legislation. Also, a local authority cannot be an occupier within its own geographic municipal boundary or district. Its functions are mainly local governance and management of public services. Hence, the consent of the Local Authority is not a prerequisite for the purposes of s. 9(1) of the PAA. (ii) The elements of the tort, require proof that the public officer either knew he was exceeding his power or was recklessly indifferent to its limits, coupled with either targeted malice or reckless indifference to the probability of causing harm. Poor knowledge or administration of the law by the police authority, no matter how inconsistent, incompetent and erroneous, without more, falls short of the 'outrageous conduct' and 'contumelious disregard' as required to find the tort of misfeasance in public office.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Public officer – Statutory duty – Resolution by Malaysian Bar for peaceful assembly – Notification under sub-s. 9(1) of Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 ('PAA') rejected by police – Whether police could reject notification – Whether sufficient information provided – Whether mere lack of information nullified notification – Whether right to assemble in public place peacefully and without arms substantive constitutional right – Whether right could be extinguished, curtailed or frustrated by trivial or technical non-compliance with procedural requirement – Whether police breached statutory duty – Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, ss. 10(c) & 11

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberty – Freedom of assembly – Resolution by Malaysian Bar for peaceful assembly – Notification under sub-s. 9(1) of Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 ('PAA') rejected by police – Imposition of conditions – Requirement for written permission from Kuala Lumpur City Hall ('DBKL') to use Padang Merbok car park as assembly point – Whether consent of DBKL prerequisite for purposes of s. 9(1) of PAA – Whether Padang Merbok public place – Whether DBKL 'owner' or 'occupier' of Padang Merbok – Whether DBKL only has regulatory and custodian functions over public places – Whether notice validly given – Whether violation of constitutional rights established – Federal Constitution, arts. 5, 9 & 10

TORT: Misfeasance – Misfeasance in public office – Resolution by Malaysian Bar for peaceful assembly – Notification under sub-s. 9(1) of Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 ('PAA') rejected by police – Whether police officers abused power or authority intentionally – Whether recklessly indifferent as to limits of public power or authority – Whether acted with intention of harming participants of assembly with targeted malice – Whether act of police fell short of the 'outrageous conduct' and 'contumelious disregard' required to found tort of misfeasance in public office