The court determined that a proposed intervener, as a joint administrator of an estate, should be allowed to join as a co-plaintiff to ensure full representation and proper adjudication of the case.

Noor Hayati Mat J:

Introduction

Enclosure 15

[1] This is an application by the Proposed Intervener for leave to intervene pursuant to O 15 r 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC ) and to be added as 2nd Plaintiff in this proceeding.

[2] After hearing both parties, I allowed the application for the proposed intervener to be admitted as a co-plaintiff with no order as to costs. The Plaintiff, however, expressed his concern about the order at the outset, as he saw potential difficulties conducting the matter jointly.

[3] In addition to the above order, the intervener requested that counsel of his choice represent him. On this issue, I did not make any order as any party is allowed under the law to be represented by their solicitors. However, I do make a remark that in the course of the preparation of the case, if conflict arises that affects the justice of the case, parties are at liberty to apply.

[4] Plaintiff now appealed to the Court of Appeal, and below are my reasons.

The Parties And Brief Background Facts

[5] The proposed intervener (Nithraj) is the brother of the deceased, Shamini a/p Manokaran, and the joint administrator of her estate with the Plaintiff (Rishindran). Rishindran is the widower of the deceased.

[6] The deceased died on 11 March 2021 due to complications suffered by her during the delivery of her daughter. This claim brought by Rishindran is for medical negligence against the doctors listed as the Defendants for the benefit of the deceased's estate under ss 7 and 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956 .

The Application - Enclosure 15

[7] During the pre-trial case management proceeding, Nithraj, the joint administrator, filed this application to be added as the 2nd Plaintiff, to be in the loop of the suit against the Defendants. At the same time, he requested to be represented separately by his solicitors.

[8] It was submitted that Nithraj filed this application because Rishindran allegedly disregarded him and initiated this claim without naming him a co-plaintiff.

[9] There has been disagreement between Rishindran and Nithraj on many matters, which led to this filing of suit by Rishindran alone instead of jointly with Nithraj, even though both are administrators to the estate.

[10] According to Nithraj, this application is necessary for the following reasons:

1. Rishindran and Nithraj were appointed joint administrators of the deceased's estate.

2. The decision of the Court would directly involve and affect Nithraj's responsibilities and liabilities as the joint-administrator of the deceased.

3. Nithraj's presence in Court is necessary to ensure all matters in dispute regarding the cause of action may be wholly and effectually determined and adjudicated upon.

4. Rishindran's objection to this application raised suspicion and was considered unreasonable.

5. Questions or issues relating to the relief claim will be justly and conveniently determined if Nithraj were added as a co-plaintiff.

6. According to the law, the duties and responsibilities of joint administrators may not be delegated as they are considered personal in nature.

7. Every person is entitled to be represented by a solicitor of their choice; therefore, if this application is allowed, Nithraj should be allowed to have his solicitor continue representing him.

[11] Defendants have no objection to the application; however, Rishindran himself have a reservation, that is, he will not object if the same (present) solicitors would represent both of them.

[12] As Nithraj did not agree upon the above, Rishindran then states his objection to the application as follows:

1. Appointing Nitraj as co-plaintiff is unnecessary, especially with separate representation.

2. There is no real risk that Rishindran would not work towards justice for the interests of the deceased's estate without him being a co-plaintiff.

3. As a joint administrator, Nithraj cannot claim interest (in the claim) for the benefit of the dependents.

4. Unlike Rishindran, Nithraj is not even a dependent of the decease