Mohd Amar bin Mohamed v Shahrul Kamal bin Roslan & Ors
Many people think: “I didn’t hit anyone. I was just there.” Or, “I didn’t do anything. I was just watching.” This case shows an important point: not everyone who is accused can be dragged into court without a proper legal basis.
This case arose after a family dinner incident that escalated into a physical altercation. The plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted by one individual and suffered serious injuries. But the claim did not stop there — two other family members who were present at the scene were also sued, on the basis that they failed to prevent the attack and were said to have verbally incited it.
At first glance, the case looked like a straightforward assault matter. But once it reached court, the real issue became more technical: can “doing nothing,” or making non-threatening statements, amount to assault in law?
The court explained that under the law of tort, assault is not merely about being present at the scene. It requires a real and immediate threat of violence, such that the victim reasonably fears that violence is about to occur.
In this case, the court found that the two defendants were merely bystanders. They did not touch the plaintiff, did not threaten him, and did not engage in any conduct that could cause fear of immediate violence. Even the statement alleged — “you do not deserve my sister” — was held not to amount to a physical threat.
The plaintiff also attempted to allege a conspiracy to cause injury. However, the court emphasised that allegations of conspiracy cannot be made in vague or general terms. The law requires clear particulars — who agreed with whom, when the agreement was made, and what acts were carried out to further that conspiracy.
In this case, none of those elements were clearly pleaded in the statement of claim. There were no solid facts showing any agreement or shared intention to harm the plaintiff.
Ultimately, the court held that the claim against the two defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The case against them was struck out at an early stage under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012, without the need for a full trial.
The court is not a place to “try your luck.” If a claim is not supported by facts and the necessary legal elements, it can die before it ever reaches trial. This case is not about who was emotionally right or wrong. It is a reminder to everyone — in law, emotion is not enough.
One allegation.
One lawsuit.
Without complete legal elements.
It can collapse at the very beginning.
Lesson learned:
If you want to sue, make sure your claim has a clear legal foundation. If you are being sued, do not panic. Some cases can be defeated early if the allegations fail to meet legal requirements.
In litigation, not everything that appears wrong will succeed, and not everyone who is accused needs to go to trial. Early strategy and proper legal advice can determine whether a case survives — or dies before it even begins.
