The court reaffirmed that an insurer can intervene in court proceedings if their financial interests are directly affected by the outcome, ensuring fair adjudication of all disputes.

Pengenalan

[1] Ini adalah merupakan rayuan ke atas keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ("HMS") yang telah menolak permohonan Perayu untuk mencelah di dalam perbicaraan kes MS No DI-A53KJ-13-06/2020. Kes tersebut melibatkan tuntutan Plaintif (yang merupakan Responden Pertama di dalam rayuan ini) terhadap Defendan (yang merupakan Responden Kedua bagi rayuan ini) untuk gantirugi am dan gantirugi khas yang terakibat daripada kemalangan yang dikatakan berlaku antara motorsikal bernombor pendaftaran DDM 8150 yang dikatakan ditunggang oleh Defendan dengan Plaintif yang menunggang motorsikal bernombor pendaftaran BMT 3632 pada 23 August 2019 jam lebih kurang 12.30 tengahari. Perayu adalah merupakan penginsuran kepada motorsikal Responden Kedua.

[2] HMS telah menolak permohonan ini di atas alasan tunggal iaitu sekiranya mahkamah membenarkan permohonan pencelahan, ia akan meyebabkan tuntutan yang bertindih. Ini kerana Responden Kedua telah meminda pembelaan mereka untuk menyatakan bahawa Responden Kedua tidak terlibat di dalam kemalangan tersebut.

Undang-Undang Berkaitan Pencelah

[3] Asas permohonan ini adalah di bawah Aturan 15 Kaedah 6(2) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.

[4] Merujuk kepada kes Pegang Mining Co Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors, [1973] 1 MLJ 135 Lord Diplock pada peringkat Privy Council telah menyatakan ujian yang perlu diaplikasikan bagi membenarkan sesuatu pihak untuk mencelah dalam sesuatu kausa atau perkara. Lord Diplock menyatakan;

"It has been sometimes said as in Moser v. Marsden [1892] 1 Ch 487 and Re LG Farbenindustrie AG [1944] Ch 41 that a party may be added if his legal interests will be affected by the judgment in the action but not if his commercial interests only would be affected. While their Lordships agree that the mere fact that a person is likely to be better off financially if a case is decided one way rather than another is not a sufficient ground to entitle him to be added as a party, they do not find the dichotomy between "legal" and "commercial" interests helpful. 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?"

[Penekanan ditambah]

[5] Mahkamah Agung di dalam kes Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v. Dr Jamaludin Dato' Mohd Jarjis , [1991] 2 MLJ 27 telah meluaskan prinsip di dalam kes Pegang Mining [Supra] dan memutuskan mahkamah boleh membenarkan "pecuniary interests in addition to the proprietary interest in an application to intervene". Mahkamah memutuskan;

"One of the class of cases covered by the said rule which allows intervention by persons not parties, is where the proprietary or pecuniary rights of the intervener are directly affected by the proceedings or where the intervener may be rendered liable to satisfy any judgment directly or indirectly. The ambit of this class has been materially widened by the decision of the UK Court of Appeal in Gurtner v. Circuit, the effect of which is to include any case in which the intervener is directly affected not only in his legal rights but in his pocket. In this connection, we would refer to and respectfully adopt the following dictum of Lord Denning MR, in that case, in which His Lordship said as follows:

"It seems to me that, when two parties are in dispute in an action at law and the determination of that dispute will directly affect a third perso