Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2574
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
THOR CHOON SIM – Appellant
Versus
ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG SEDANG MENDUDUKI / MEJALANKAN PERNIAGAAN DI A.... – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: PA-24NCVC-686-08/2019]
A Proposed Intervener must demonstrate a legal interest in the property, not merely a commercial interest, for an intervention to be granted.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 15 r 6 – Application to intervene – Proposed Intervener's application dismissed due to lack of legal interest and unreasonable delay – The applicant must establish legal interest rather than mere commercial interest in the proceedings. (Paras 15-39)
(B)
Legal Interest vs. Commercial Interest – A party may only be added if their legal interests will be affected; commercial interests alone do not suffice. (Paras 15-30)
(C)
Delay in Application – Delay in making the application can affect the exercise of discretion by the Court. (Paras 17-20)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, as the legal owner, sought to evict the Proposed Intervener who claimed a right to occupy the premises based on an agreement with the former tenant, Goh.
Findings of Court:
The Proposed Intervener failed to show a legal interest in the property and delayed the intervention application unnecessarily.
Issues
: The main issues were whether the Proposed Intervener possessed a legal interest and the implications of any delay in filing the intervention.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court emphasized the necessity of establishing a legal interest as opposed to a commercial interest and underscored that delay could hinder the application.
Result:
Application to intervene was dismissed with costs of RM2,500.00.
JUDGMENT
[Enclosure 19]
Introduction
[1] This is an application by the Pencelah Yang Dicadangkan ("Proposed Intervener") to intervene in this suit pursuant to O 15 r 6 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012"). This Court had on 1 December 2022 dismissed the application with a cost of RM2,500.00. This is an appeal against the decision of this Court. This judgment contains the reason for my decision. The parties are referred to as they were in the High Court.
The Cause Papers
[2] The cause papers filed in respect of this application are as follows:
(i) the Notice of Application (encl 19) dated 8 August 2022;
(ii) the Proposed Intervener's Affidavit (encl 20) affirmed on 8 August 2022 ("Proposed Intervener's Affidavit");
(iii) the Plaintiff's Affidavit in reply (encl 22) affirmed on 29 August 2022 ("Plaintiff's Reply"); and
(iv) the Proposed Intervener's Affidavit in reply (encl 23) affirmed on 9 September 2022 ("Proposed Intervener's Affidavit In Reply")
Background Facts
[3] This suit was filed by the Plaintiff as the legal owner of the premise known as Hakmilik No 38150, Lot 74, Seksyen 20, Daerah Timur Laut, Bandar Georgetown, Pulau Pinang.
[4] The said premise was rented out to an individual by the name of Goh Hong Chin ("Goh") and a tenancy agreement was entered to this effect. However, Goh had vacated said premise on 31 October 2016. At the same time the Proposed Intervener has entered into an agreement with Goh. No agreement or any legal contract between the Proposed Intervener and the Plaintiff.
[5] The Plaintiff had subsequently obtained an order for vacant possession of the said premise on 23 September 2019. After obtaining a vacant possession order against the said premise, all the cause papers were served to all parties concerned to vacate it. No action was taken by the Proposed Intervener. The Plaintiff had obtained a vacant possession of the said premise on 3 December 2019 However, the Defendants (unknown persons) have again trespassed and the Proposed Intervener continued business activities at the premises [coffee shop]. It is within the knowledge of the Defendants and the Proposed Intervener of this order to vacant the premises at least by 3 December 2019.
[6] The Proposed Intervener had than decided to file a writ action to claim for damages of the premise via Civil Suit no: PA-A72NCVC-3- 01/202 (still pending in Sessions Court) and also to intervene in this suit.
The Law
[7] The relevant provision herein is O 15 r 6 of the ROC 2012.
Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (O 15 r 6)
(1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter.
(2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application:
(a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party;
(b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely:
(i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or
(ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter.
Cases
The relevant cases are as follows:
[8] In Chong Fook Sin v. Amanah Raya Bhd (As The Administrator For The Estate Of Raja Nong Chik Bin Raja Ishak, Deceased) & O
