Appellants cannot challenge an insurer's settlement with insured parties under subrogation rights.

[1] This is the Appellants' appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ"), where she allowed the Respondents' claim against the Appellants at the Sessions Court.

[2] The action at the Sessions Court was brought by MPI Generali Insurans Berhad (formerly known as Multi-Purpose Insurans Bhd) ("the Insurer") by way of subrogation to the rights of the insured Respondents against the Insurer under an insurance contract between the Insurer and the Respondents, namely a "Houseowner / Householder Policy Claim" ("the Insurance Policy"). In the subrogation action at the Sessions Court, the Respondents were named as Plaintiff and the Appellants as Defendants.

[3] The Respondents were joint owners of Lots 81 and 82, Seputeh Heights and the Appellants are joint owners of Lots 62 and 80. Both the Respondents' and Appellants properties adjoined each other. The Appellants and/or their employees and/or their agents had commenced construction and excavation works to construct retaining walls ("the Works") on the Appellants property on or around October 2011.

[4] The Respondents had brought a claim against the Insurer under the Insurance Policy for damage to several structures on their property, which they said was caused by the Works. The damaged structures were a fish pond, yoga pavilion and perimeter rubble wall ("Structures").

[5] The Insurer, appointed adjusters (Crawford & Company Adjusters (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd) to investigate the Respondents claim. The Insurer, upon reading the adjuster's report, was satisfied that the damage to the Structures was covered by the Insurance Policy and entered into a settlement agreement with the Respondents; whereby they paid the sum of RM318,988.00 for damage to the fish pond and yoga pavilion on the Respondents' property and RM286,068.82 for the rubble wall and flying fox pavilion.

[6] The Appellants contend that the learned SCJ had erred in fact and in fact in allowing the Respondents' claim against them. They had listed 17 grounds of appeal in their memorandum of appeal. However, the crux of their appeal, as emphasised in their submissions, are as follows:

(i) The doctrine of laches applies to the Respondents' action against the Appellants;

(ii) There was no documentary evidence produced at the trial showing that the fish pond form part of the risks covered under the Insurance Policy;

(iii) Lot 81 was not covered by the Insurance Policy; and

(iv) The Respondents had failed to prove that the damage to the Structures were caused by the Appellants.

Principles Governing Appellate Intervention

[7] In deciding whether to intervene in the decision of the learned SCJ, this Court must adhere to the established principles of appellate intervention, namely that the appellate Court ought not to intervene with the trial Court's decision unless the trial Court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision.

[8] The Federal Court in the case of Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors, 2004 MarsdenLR 2024 explained the "plainly wrong test" as follows:

"[14] In our view, the Court of Appeal in citing these cases had clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate intervention, ie to determine whether or not the trial Court had arrived at its decision or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly entitled to examine the process of evaluation of the evidence by the trial Court. Clearly, the phrase 'insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence' merely related to such a process. This is reflected in the Court of Appeal's restatement that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or