Parent Sued The Wrong School Company Says In Its Defence

---

 
The suit was filed against Pine Hill International Sdn Bhd. However, the company said it does not operate the Petaling Jaya campus where the child was enrolled.
PETALING JAYA: The mother of an autistic child, who alleges that a branch campus of an international school was operating illegally, has sued the wrong party, according to the company named in the suit.
Pine Hills International Sdn Bhd (PHI) said it did not own, manage or operate the Petaling Jaya campus of Pine Hills International School, located at Wisma MMB.
In its defence filed in the sessions court yesterday, PHI said it only owns, manages and operates the school’s Subang Jaya campus.
The company said the PJ campus is owned, managed and operated solely by Pine Hills International School (PJ) Sdn Bhd, and PHI has no involvement with its operations, according to the defence statement filed by solicitors Moideen & Max.
PHI said the plaintiff, Nor Hashiba Che Li @ Che Ismail, had failed to identify the correct party when bringing the suit.
Nor Hashiba filed the suit earlier this month. She named the school’s principal and three directors as defendants. She is expected to file her reply to the defence by April 11, according to her lawyer, Jonathan Khaw.
In her suit, she asked the court for a declaration that the school’s PJ campus was unlicensed and operating illegally in breach of the Education Act and other laws.
She also sought a declaration that the principal had falsely assured parents, including herself, that its PJ campus was legitimate, and that the directors had knowingly permitted and benefitted from the operation of the PJ campus.
Nor Hashiba sought a refund of the RM65,000 in tuition fees and security deposit, compensation for costs incurred to transfer her child to another school, and damages.
She said she first enrolled her autistic son at the Subang Jaya campus in 2021, in light of its suitability for children with special needs. She later transferred him to the PJ campus in April 2024 on the advice of the school’s representatives, she said in her statement of claim.
However, she said she began to have concerns about the legitimacy of the PJ campus as it was located in an industrial area, with heavy vehicles constantly passing by, and lacked proper signage.
Nor Hashiba said she was informed by an officer of the education ministry that the PJ campus was unregistered and did not receive approval to operate as a school.
She also stated she was told by the Petaling Jaya City Council that the school had been denied planning permission and was operating illegally on industrial land.
She alleged that when confronted, the school denied that the boy was ever enrolled there and refused to refund the school fees and deposit she paid.
Nor Hashiba also claimed that the principal had defamed her by circulating a letter to school staff, parents, and others, accusing her of harassment and misconduct.
PHI asked for the suit to be dismissed with costs.
The company said Nor Hashiba’s child was no longer a student of the Subang Jaya campus after her son was transferred to the PJ campus.
The company also claimed that it was Nor Hashiba who decided to transfer her child from the Subang campus to the PJ campus.
PHI stated that Nor Hashiba, “as a responsible parent” was expected to undertake her own checks of the PJ campus, including the status of the school, before transferring her child there.
The company said it never received any queries from Nor Hashiba regarding the legitimacy of the PJ campus, and said she had mistaken PHI as the party owning, managing and operating the PJ campus. - FMT

---