Scribd
Upload
57 views

Leave To Intervene

This document summarizes key points from several court cases related to intervention under Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court. It notes that intervention can be allowed if necessary for a party to be present or if a party's claim would materially affect the intervener's rights. The rule should be interpreted widely but not in a way that alters or enlarges its meaning. Leave to intervene is at the court's discretion based on whether the intervener's rights or liabilities would be directly affected by an order in the case. An application can be made before judgment but not after, and the judge should not make definitive factual findings at the intervention stage based only on affidavits.

Uploaded by

Agitha Gunasagran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views

Leave To Intervene

This document summarizes key points from several court cases related to intervention under Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court. It notes that intervention can be allowed if necessary for a party to be present or if a party's claim would materially affect the intervener's rights. The rule should be interpreted widely but not in a way that alters or enlarges its meaning. Leave to intervene is at the court's discretion based on whether the intervener's rights or liabilities would be directly affected by an order in the case. An application can be made before judgment but not after, and the judge should not make definitive factual findings at the intervention stage based only on affidavits.

Uploaded by

Agitha Gunasagran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Dato' Dr Haji Mohamed Haniffa bin Haji Abdullah & Ors v Koperasi Doktor

Malaysia Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2008] 3 MLJ 530 - COA , GSR,
Abdull Hamid Embong & Heliliah JJCA

I rely on Gopal Sri Ram JCA’s (as he then was) judgment in the Court of
Appeal case of Dato’ Dr Haji Mohamed Haniffa bin Haji Abdullah & Ors v
Koperasi Doktor Malaysia Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2008] 3 MLJ 530,
at 536 and 537, as follows -

[5] In resolving that question, I begin, as I must, with O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the


RHC. ...

Two observations are called for. In the first place, it is important to note that
the rule permits intervention on two separate grounds. In sub-para (i) it
enables intervention where the presence of a party before the court is
necessary. In sub-para (ii) intervention is enabled where a party to an action
claims relief or a remedy which will materially affect the non-party-
intervener’s rights. In such circumstances, the court is empowered to permit
intervention if it forms the view that to do so will be just and convenient.
The second observation is that the court should not read the requirements
of the rule as though they are words in a penal statute calling for strict
compliance with them before intervention may be permitted. Put
differently, the rule should be widely or liberally interpreted. But the court
should also bear in mind that ‘it must be an interpretation of the language
used’ by the rule because the rule ‘does not give power to add a party
whenever it is just or convenient to do so’. In other words, no ‘process of
giving a wide or liberal interpretation to the rule can be employed to alter it
or to give it an enlarged meaning which, on a fair and reasonable
interpretation, it does not bear’.
Sri Permata Sdn Bhd v PPH Realty Sdn Bhd [2002] 1 MLJ 552 – HC, Abdull
Hamid Embong J

Leave to intervene is granted at the court's discretion. In considering


whether to allow this application or not, this court is guided by the test
enunciated by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam &
Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52 which has been followed in two decisions of our apex
court in Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v Superace (M) Sdn Bhd [1992] 2 MLJ 63 and
Arab Malaysia Merchant Bank Bhd v Jamaluddin bin Dato Mohd Jarjis [1991]
2 MLJ 27 and a host of other decisions in the High Courts and Court of
Appeal. This test may be stated by quoting a short passage from the advice
of the Privy Council in Pegang Mining. It states:

A better way of expressing the test is: will his rights against or liabilities to
any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be
directly affected by any order which may be made in the action? (Emphasis
added.)

The intended intervener here had not shown that it has met the test
formulated in Pegang Mining to move this court to exercise its discretion in
allowing it to participate in this proceedings.

Hong Leong Bank Bhd (formerly known as Hong Leong Finance Bhd) v
Staghorn Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2008] 2 MLJ 622

The words 'At any stage of the proceedings…' necessarily mean that there is
a proceeding pending. Once the judgment is entered, the proceeding has
come to an end. Furthermore, O 15 is concerned with the very early stage of
a proceeding, to have all the necessary parties in before the trial begins (see
paras 21 & 27).

The application may be made 'at any stage of the proceedings' meaning
before judgment, otherwise the proceedings have concluded and there is no
longer a proceeding in existence for the party to intervene in.The judge had
also become functus officio. Even then, the application must be made
promptly. Order 15 r 6 of the RHC applies to all civil proceedings whether
commenced by a writ, motion or summons etc

An application for leave to intervene is supported by an affidavit. In other


words, in such an application, the judge merely decides on affidavit
evidence, whether or not leave should be granted. At that stage, the judge
should not make a definite finding of facts which, as envisaged by O 15 r 6 of
the RHC, will and can only be made after all evidence has been adduced in
the trial which will follow subsequently

You might also like