In the suit, the Jenkins family claims the police were negligent in the discharge of their duties. They say a death certificate was issued without police first conducting a search for her entire remains.

The family also says police failed to carry out a DNA test on her remains or identify the cause of death.

Filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, the suit alleges that the police registered Anna’s death despite finding only 34 bones at a bungalow development site near the Penang Turf Club.

Anna disappeared while on holiday in Penang in 2017 after taking an Uber ride. Her remains were discovered three years later in the vicinity of the area where she alighted.

In May, a coroner returned an open verdict on the cause of her death, which the family is challenging.

Anna’s death certificate, dated June 26, 2020, listed the cause of death as “undetermined (skeletal remains)”. It was issued two days after her bones and personal effects were discovered. A positive DNA match was only confirmed two months later, court documents claimed.

In its defence, the police denied wrongdoing, saying Anna’s death was registered after her clothing, a dental appointment card and a pair of spectacles were found at a project site near the racecourse.

The police also denied the family’s claim that it had failed to trace and triangulate a distress call she made to her husband Frank on the day she went missing, or check it against hotel phone records.

In their defence, the police said they had made the necessary checks but found that the phone number was not registered to any local operator. Police also claimed the deceased did not bring her phone along on the day she went missing.

“We informed Interpol about Anna’s disappearance and checked the records of her husband and son,” said the police.

The family has named eight parties as defendants in the suit. Apart from the government, the home minister, the inspector-general of police and two police officers, they have also named Berjaya Land Development Sdn Bhd, its project manager Terrence Theseira, and Kew Kee Seng, a landscape worker.

All the defendants have denied the claims.

The family is also seeking to hold landowner Berjaya, Theseira and Kew liable for allegedly concealing the discovery of her bones.

They say Kew, who found her remains and personal effects, reburied them elsewhere on Theseira’s instructions.

Several weeks later, the buried remains and effects were found to have been tampered with. Theseira then ordered Kew to bring them to the attention of the police.

In its statement of defence, Berjaya said it had no control over Kew, who was not a member of its staff. The company admitted that Theseira had asked for the bones to be reburied, but said the instructions were given without malice.

“Theseira had no knowledge whatsoever and cannot be reasonably expected to know that the said remains were human remains or were of the deceased.

“As the said land is situated near and on land which are non-Muslim burial grounds, Theseira advised Kew to not disturb the remains and/or to rebury them and conduct ritualistic prayers out of respect for the remains found,” its defence statement read.

Berjaya also asked for the suit to be struck out, claiming it was “frivolous, scandalous, vexatious and obviously unsustainable”. It said the company was a “legal stranger” to the deceased and her family, and an “innocent bystander” in her disappearance and death.

The Jenkins family is represented by lawyer Sankara Nair, who confirmed the filings.

Ong Yu Shin appeared for Berjaya Land and Theseira, while Kew was unrepresented.

The suit is fixed for case management on Nov 3.