High Court rejects bid for closed-door trial in civil suit over Bandar Utama school murder

The High Court today rejected a bid by the teenager acquitted of murdering his schoolmate Yap Shing Xuen at a Bandar Utama secondary school last year to have the entire civil suit heard in-camera, or in closed-door proceedings. — Bernama pic

By Kenneth Tee

First Published: Thursday, 22 Oct 2026 1:21 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 22 — The High Court today rejected a bid by the teenager acquitted of murdering his schoolmate Yap Shing Xuen at a Bandar Utama secondary school last year to have the entire civil suit heard in-camera, or in closed-door proceedings.

Judicial Commissioner Datuk Anand Ponnudurai said there was no basis for the broader order sought by the teenager, through his counsel, to hold the entire proceedings in-camera, excluding members of the media and anyone not directly involved in the case.

Anand said the court could not determine at this stage which witnesses would testify or the nature of their evidence, adding that the defendants could later apply for specific witnesses to testify in-camera if their evidence was likely to identify the teenager.

“The court is cognisant of the Child Act 2001, which restricts the reporting of details identifying a child, and also of the interest of justice and the public interest.

“There are many cases in which orders are granted to protect a child, but the proceedings are still conducted with the media allowed to report, subject to restrictions.

“Considering the nature of this case and the necessity to protect the child/first defendant (D1), I am of the view that a balancing act is required.

“While the child must be protected, I see no reason for a total ban on reporting. There will be benefits to the public in knowing what transpires and in the judgment,” he said in his ruling earlier today.

Nevertheless, Anand ordered a ban on publishing any information that could identify the teenager, and directed that all cause papers be sealed and kept confidential, accessible only to the parties and their solicitors.

He also ordered that the names of D1, his litigation representative and his parents be anonymised and referred to only by their initials.

Lawyer Surendra Ananth appeared for Yap’s family, while Nicholas Poon represented the teenager, Abraham Au appeared for the boy’s parents and senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin represented the government agencies.

In the current lawsuit filed on October 1, Yap’s family — her mother (pic) and sister — claimed that breaches of duty of care contributed to her death in October last year. — Picture by Raymond Manuel

Background

In the current lawsuit filed on October 1, Yap’s family — her mother and sister — claimed that breaches of duty of care contributed to her death in October last year.

Among those named are the boy himself, his parents, and several school authorities, including his homeroom teacher, the school principal, and teachers responsible for counselling and student affairs.

The family also named officers from the Petaling Utama district education office, the Selangor education department director, the director-general of education, the education minister, the registrar general of educational institutions and teachers, the director-general of health, the health minister, the women, family and community development minister and the government of Malaysia.

Yap’s mother, who is also suing as the estate administrator and in her own right, is seeking special damages totalling RM120,602 for her daughter’s funeral expenses from the named defendants jointly and separately.

She is also separately seeking general damages to be assessed by the High Court, including any other relief the court deems fit or appropriate.

On September 14, the Shah Alam High Court acquitted and discharged the teenager after finding he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence, and ordered him to be placed at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta for a period subject to the Sultan of Selangor’s approval.

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has since filed an appeal challenging the acquittal.