Court rejects 'Act of God' defense in Sri Muda flood case

KUALA LUMPUR, 30 SEPTEMBER 2026 —

The High Court in Shah Alam ruled on September 29 that the Malaysian government and six other agencies are liable for the 2021 floods in Taman Sri Muda, rejecting their defense that the disaster was an unavoidable "Act of God." The court found that the defendants failed in their operational duties regarding disaster management, meteorological warnings, and drainage systems, thereby establishing a direct causal link between their negligence and the harm suffered by residents.

The judgment determined that the plaintiffs successfully proved the existence of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and sufficient causation between the defendants' failures and the resulting damages.

Rajah explicitly rejected the argument that the heavy rainfall constituted an "Act of God" or that the infrastructure had simply exceeded its original design capacity. She stated that in a tropical country inherently exposed to heavy rain and floods, such events are foreseeable natural occurrences. The court held that defendants cannot evade liability by classifying the incident as a policy decision or government discretion.

Instead, the case involved failures in the execution and operation of responsibilities related to disaster management, meteorology, drainage systems, and flood control.

The judgment specified that Nadma and MetMalaysia breached their operational duties in disaster management and the delivery of flood risk warnings, which must be executed efficiently while considering the safety of individuals exposed to foreseeable risks. Rajah further ruled that JPS has a continuous operational responsibility to manage, maintain, and operate drainage systems with reasonable efficiency.

She noted that MBSA could not avoid its responsibilities merely because the primary flood mitigation assets were owned or controlled by other public authorities.

The 2021 floods in Taman Sri Muda resulted in the deaths of 12 people and caused significant damage to residents' homes and property. The court emphasized that proving the rain was exceptionally heavy or exceeded the original drainage capacity is insufficient for a defense. Defendants would need to prove that the event was so extraordinary and unprecedented that no reasonable steps in expectation, preparation, or operational response could have prevented the damage.

The successful proof of operational failure by the plaintiffs meant the rainfall could not serve as a complete defense.

The court has scheduled a case management conference for October 6 to set a date for the hearing to determine the amount of compensation. The 50 plaintiffs were represented by lawyers James Joshua Paulraj, Regine Ng, Ahmad Badri Mustaffa, M. Gobinath, and P. Taneswaran. The federal government was represented by Senior Counsel Al-Saifi Hashim, Nurul Farhana Khalid, and Liew Horng Bin, while JPS and MBSA were represented by Faris Shah Kamarulzaman and Norazalina Hairuddin, respectively.