On 8 December 2025, the Court of Appeal in Yong Shui Tian v Majlis Perbandaran Langkawi Bandaraya Pelancongan [2026] 2 MLRA 308 (“the MPLBP case”) held that the respondent, Majlis Perbandaran Langkawi Bandaraya Pelancongan (“MPLBP”), as the local authority established pursuant to the Local Government Act 1976 (“LGA 1976”), is mandated to administer the affairs of Langkawi in accordance with section 8 of the LGA 1976.
 
This statutory mandate extends to all areas within the boundaries of the Langkawi district and includes the responsibility to manage, supervise and maintain the Pantai Chenang beach and its surrounding areas. The responsibilities of MPLBP include not only the oversight of public parks and open spaces, but also the duty to address the risks posed by falling trees to public safety or convenience, regardless of whether such trees are situated on privately owned or State land.
 
In light of the MPLBP case, this is an appropriate occasion to discuss the duties and responsibilities of local authority in addressing issues concerning trees that may affect public safety or convenience within its jurisdiction, particularly given Malaysia’s prevailing weather conditions and recurrent monsoon seasons.
 
Brief Facts
 
This was an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the High Court, which dismissed his claim against MPLBP. The appellant had suffered serious injuries, resulting in paralysis of the lower half of his body, when a coconut tree fell on him while he was at Pantai Chenang beach, Langkawi, on 9 January 2019.
 
The appellant's claim against MPLBP was based on allegations of negligence and breach of statutory duty under the LGA 1976. He contended that MPLBP, as the local authority, owed a duty under section 101 of the LGA 1976 to control, supervise, and maintain the coconut trees on Pantai Chenang beach, but failed in discharging this responsibility.
 
In his action before the High Court, the appellant sought, among other reliefs, special damages in the sum of RM4,594,577.42, general damages, aggravated and/or exemplary damages (to be assessed by the High Court), together with interest and costs.
 
Findings of the High Court
 
After a full trial, the High Court held that the appellant had failed to establish that MPLBP, in its capacity as a local authority, owed a statutory duty or a duty of care to the appellant. The High Court accepted MPLBP’s defence and found that there was no breach of duties on the part of MPLBP leading to the appellant's injuries, nor any negligence in its maintenance of the coconut trees or in ensuring public safety at Pantai Chenang beach.
 
MPLBP’s defence was as follows: 

Decision of the Court of Appeal
 
After analysing the evidence presented during trial together with the applicable law, the Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal and held that MPLBP is wholly liable for the injuries suffered by the appellant as a result of the coconut tree falling on him at Pantai Chenang beach. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the appellant's claim for damages was remitted to the High Court for hearing before a different Judge.
 
Among others, the Court of Appeal considered and decided on the following issues:

1.

Pantai Chenang beach forms part of MPLBP’s administrative area and jurisdiction

The Court of Appeal held that the LGA 1976 was enacted to revise and consolidate the laws relating to local government in Peninsular Malaysia. Under section 3 of the LGA 1976, the State Authority of each State in Peninsular Malaysia is empowered, inter alia, to declare any area in the State to be a local authority area and to define the boundaries of such local authority area by notification in the Government gazette. In the present case, the Kedah State Authority had declared the entire administrative area of Langkawi to be a local authority area pursuant to the Kedah Government Gazette dated 1 March 1979 (K.P.U. 11).   It follows that, under section 8 of the LGA 1976, the affairs of every local authority area shall be administered by a local authority established in accordance with the LGA 1976. In the context of the whole area of Langkawi, which has been declared a local authority area, the responsibility for administering its affairs is vested in MPLBP. This statutory mandate extends to all areas within the boundaries of the district of Langkawi and includes the Pantai Chenang beach. Hence, MPLBP is both authorised and obligated to oversee the administration of the Pantai Chenang beach.   Additionally, the Court of Appeal held that the learned High Court Judge had erred in concluding that Pantai Chenang beach constituted private land. Instead, the Court of Appeal found that a “beach” falls squarely within the statutory definition of “public place” under section 2 of the LGA 1976 1.

2.

MPLBP owes a statutory duty under section 101 of the LGA 1976

Section 101 of the LGA 1976 details the responsibilities of a local authority. In particular, section 101(b) empowers a local authority to plant, trim, or remove trees; section 101(c)(i) authorises a local authority to construct, maintain, supervise and control public parks, gardens, recreation grounds, open spaces, and holiday sites; and section 101(cc)(i) permits a local authority to require owners or occupiers of premises to remove, lower, or trim trees, shrubs, or hedges overhanging or interfering in any way with the traffic on any road or street or, in the opinion of the local authority, are likely to endanger public safety or convenience, and in the event of a tree within a private premises falling onto a public road or street, to remove the fallen tree and recover the expenses incurred from the owner or occupier.   The Federal Court in Ahmad Jaafar Abdul Latiff v Dato' Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2014] 9 CLJ 861 (“Ahmad Jaafar Abdul Latiff”) explained that section 101(cc)(i) of the LGA 1976 clearly imposes a statutory duty on the local authority to remove any tree that is likely to cause danger to public safety. It does not matter that the tree was on a private land, as the LGA 1976 empowers the local authority to require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or trim the tree. The LGA 1976 also does not prohibit the local authority from entering any private land to cut or trim trees that pose a danger to the public. Accordingly, the local authority should constantly supervise and trim all hazardous trees, regardless of whether the trees stood on its land or otherwise.   The Court of Appeal in Pengarah Jurutera Daerah Jabatan Kerja Raya Seremban & Yang Lain lwn. Iqmal Izzuddeen Mohd Rosthy & Yang Lain & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2025] CLJU 1219 held that, under section 101(b) of the LGA 1976, it was the local authority’s duty to ensure the proper supervision and maintenance of the tree in question. Notwithstanding that the tree was situated on land belonging to JKR Seremban, the Court of Appeal found that the local authority was wholly responsible for the accident and the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The strict statutory responsibility arose from the local authority's failure to adequately supervise and maintain the tree, which ultimately led to its collapse on the day of the incident.   Applying the doctrine of stare decisis2, the Court of Appeal held that in the present case, MPLBP owed a duty of care to the appellant and to members of the public to remove any tree that poses a potential threat to public safety and to oversee the management and supervision of open spaces and holiday sites within Langkawi under sections 101(b), (c), and (cc)(i) of the LGA 1976. In other words, MPLBP is required to remove the dangerous coconut trees, regardless of whether they are located on private or State land.

3.

MPLBP breached its statutory duty and/or duty of care

In Malaysia, a breach of statutory duty arises from the non-performance of the said duty, irrespective of the defendant's level of care. It is not necessary to prove any lack of care on the part of the defendant; the mere non-performance of the statutory duty itself constitutes a breach.3 This differs from the common law requirement for a breach of duty of care, where the claimant is required to show that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing a foreseeable harm.   Accordingly, in determining whether MPLBP had breached its statutory duty under section 101 of the LGA 1976, the critical factor is whether MPLBP had failed to perform a statutory duty imposed under the LGA 1976, rather than whether it had exercised reasonable care to prevent the foreseeable harm.   In the present case, MPLBP admitted that they had taken no action to monitor or maintain the coconut trees situated along Pantai Chenang beach. Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that MPLBP - due to its non-performance - had breached its statutory duties under the LGA 1976.   Additionally, the Court of Appeal held that MPLBP had also breached its common law duty of care to the appellant by failing to take reasonable care to supervise, maintain, trim and/or remove the coconut trees on the Pantai Chenang beach. As noted by the Federal Court in Ahmad Jaafar Abdul Latiff, “the words employed in section 101 is clear in that it imposes a duty of care on the part of the defendant to protect road users/public”.

4.

The application of the defences of act of God and volenti non fit injuria was plainly wrong

The Court of Appeal held that there was a lack of proper evaluation of the evidence adduced during the trial when the learned High Court Judge found that the coconut tree fell down because of strong winds on the night of 9 January 2019.   This finding of fact is at odds with the Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia's record of the meteorological data (which includes the "Hourly Surface Wind", "Observer's Handbox Wind Beaufort Scale: Specifications and Equivalent Speeds", and "Hourly Rainfall Duration and Amount" for Pulau Langkawi on 9 January 2019) as well as the testimonies of the appellant and the meteorological officer. Both the documentary and oral evidence showed the opposite - that the weather conditions on the night of the incident were normal without rain and with weak/light winds.   Contrary to the evidence, the learned High Court Judge found that on the night of the incident, the wind was blowing strongly and went on to conclude that the appellant’s injuries were caused by the appellant's own negligence rather than any fault of MPLBP.   Accordingly, the learned High Court Judge’s acceptance and application of MPLBP’s defences of act of God and volenti non fit injuria were plainly wrong, and the Court of Appeal held that appellate intervention is warranted in the present case.

Comments
 
Although the Court of Appeal’s decision in the MPLBP case does not break new ground, it serves as an important reminder of the statutory and common law duties owed by local authorities in Malaysia. This case highlights that local authorities, such as MPLBP, bear clear responsibilities under the LGA 1976 to supervise, maintain, and manage trees and public spaces within their jurisdiction, regardless of whether such trees are located on private or State land.
 
The local authorities are, therefore, required to take proactive measures in the supervision, maintenance, and management of trees and public spaces, particularly in areas presenting potential risks to public safety or convenience. Failure to do so may expose the local authorities to liability for injuries suffered by members of the public.
 
 
Article by Loo Peh Fern (Partner) and Tan Yng Yiin (Associate) of the Dispute Resolution Practice of Skrine.
 

---