The proposed intervener has a right to be heard when their interests are directly affected by proceedings, ensuring fair adjudication.

[1] By way of an Amended Notice of Motion dated 9 January 2021 (Motion) in encl 7, Ricky Thong Yew Fook, the proposed intervener herein (Proposed Intervener) has applied to this Court pursuant to O 15 r 4(2) and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for inter alia an Order that:

1.1 the Proposed Intervener be granted leave to intervene in the Notice of Motion of Dato Narendra Kumar Jasani a/l Chunilal Rugnath (Applicant) the abovenamed Applicant in the intitulment dated 21 September 2020 (encl 1) which was filed in action No. WA-28PW-338-09/2020 (PW 338)

1.2 the Proposed Intervener be added as the Co Applicant in this action

1.3 the intitulment in this action be amended by adding the Proposed Intervener as the Co Applicant

1.4 that the Applicant shall serve all the cause papers in these proceedings to the Proposed Intervener within 7 days from the date of this Order and the Proposed Intervener to be granted leave to file any cause papers including but not limited to affidavits on behalf of the Co Applicant

1.5 that the orders prayed in the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 21 September 2020 (encl 1) be amended by adding the following:

"(a) that the Applicant and Co Applicant remuneration as the joint liquidators for the Respondent form the period 26 April 2011 to 19 February 2019 to be fixed by this Court on a single fee of remuneration"

1.6 costs

1.7 such further or other relief as this Court deems fit and necessary.

[2] The grounds in support of the Motion are inter alia as follows:

(a) By a Court Order dated 04 February 2004, the Proposed Intervener was appointed as the liquidator for the Respondent;

(b) On or about after seven (7) years the Proposed Intervener acted as the sole liquidator for the Respondent, the Applicant was subsequently appointed as the joint liquidator for the Respondent by virtue of the Court Order dated 26 April 2011;

(c) Pursuant to the Court Order dated 26 April 2011, the Court has directed that the remuneration for the joint liquidators shall be subjected to a single fee of remuneration for a liquidator;

(d) Both the Applicant and the Proposed Intervener have been discharged as the joint liquidators for the Respondent by the Court of Appeal on 18 January 2019 and the Court of Appeal further ordered that the Applicant and the Proposed Intervener to hand over all the files belonging to the Respondent to the Official Receiver;

(e) On 21 September 2020, the Applicant has filed encl 1 in this action to seek for the remuneration as the joint liquidator and pursuant to the Court Order dated 26 April 2011 and the Proposed Intervener is therefore entitled jointly to the remuneration as the joint liquidator to be fixed by this Honourable Court ;

(f) The Proposed Intervener should be given a right to be heard in this action

Background Facts

[3] The chronology of events has been set out as follows:

Proposed Intervener's Submissions

[4] The Proposed Intervener had averred that despite the Proposed Intervener's attempts to follow up on his remuneration with the Official Receiver (OR), no satisfactory response was received.

[5] It was further submitted by the Proposed Intervener that:

a. despite the High Court Order of 26 April 2011 (26 April 2011 Order) wherein the Applicant was appointed as joint liquidator of the Respondent Company from the date of the order and that the said appointment was subjected to a single set of fees, the Applicant had proceeded to file PW 338 without informing the Proposed Intervener beforehand or