The court ruled the Session Judge exceeded jurisdiction by appointing a third party to manage judgment funds, permitted only by the High Court under relevant statutes.

Introduction

[1] The Appellants/Plaintiffs being not satisfied with the Order of the Session Court dated 2 April 2015, appeal against the said Order.

[2] The Respondents/Defendants filed a Notice of Application (encl 76A) which sought the following orders:-

1. Penggantungan perlaksanaan diberi terhadap penghakiman Mahkamah Yang Mulia dalam ini bertarikh 19 Mac 2015 sambil menunggu keputusan muktamad Rayuan Defendan kepada Mahkamah Tinggi;

2. Dalam alternatif, jumlah penghakiman Yang Mulia dalam ini bertarikh 19 Mac 2015 diletakkan dalam akaun pelanggan Peguamcara Plaintif sambil menunggu keputusan muktamad Rayuan Defendan kepada Mahkamah Tinggi;

3. Lagi atau dalam alternatif, jumlah penghakiman yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk kos penjagaan diletakkan atas nama Plaintif Kedua dan ditadbir oleh Amanah Raya Berhad untuk penjagaan di Columbia Asia Extended Care Hospital.

[3] Upon hearing both parties, the Session Court made an order dated 2 April 2015 ("Order") that the Judgment Sum for nursing care be paid in the name of the 2nd Plaintiff and administered by Amanah Raya Berhad for the 2nd Plaintiff at Columbia Asia Extended Hospital.

[4] Hence, the Order was given solely for the third prayer sought by the Defendants in encl 76A. In this case the Judgment Sum for nursing care is RM1,863,056.00 awarded against the Defendants by the Session Court.

[5] The Order dated 2 April 2015 appealed against reads as follows-

"ATAS permohonan Defendan-defendan DAN SETELAH MEMBACA Notis Permohonan di lampiran 76A, Afidavit Lachman Lalchand yang diikrarkan pada 25hb Mac dan Afidavit Sumathi Chnadra yang diikrarkan pada 30hb Mac DAN SETELAH MENDENGAR Dato Brijnandan Singh Bhar dan Cik Sumathy Chandra bagi pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Encik Aaron Abraham dan Encik K Ganesan bagi pihak Defendan-Defendan.

MAKA ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa penghakiman bertarikh 19hb Mac 2015 untuk penjagaan iaitu "nursing care" dibayar atas nama Plaintif Kedua dan ditadbir oleh Amanah Raya Berhad untuk kos penjagaan Plaintif Kedua di Columbia Asia Extended Care Hospital. Kos ditanggung oleh Defendan-Defendan"

[6] This order was subsequently amended at 2nd paragraph on 6 October 2015 to now reads as follows-

MAKA ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa Permohonan Defendan-Defendan di Lampiran 76A dibenarkan di prayer alternatif 3 bahawa penghakiman bertarikh 19hb Mac 2015 untuk penjagaan iaitu "nursing care" dibayar atas nama Plaintif Kedua dan ditadbir oleh Amanah Raya Berhad untuk kos penjagaan Plaintif Kedua di Colubia Asia Extended Care Hospital. Kos ditanggung oleh Defendan-Defendan"

[7] The amended order dated 2 April 2015 can be found in Rekod Rayuan Tambahan Plaintiff (II).

Preliminary Issue

[8] It was contended by the Defendants that the Order dated 2 April 2015 by the Session Court was inter-parte order having been decided after hearing both parties. It was essentially a consequential Order made subsequent to the Judgment and merely clarified the manner in which the Judgment Sum was to be paid. It should therefore be read together with the Judgment dated 19 March 2015 as a single decision.As such, it is submitted that this Appeal is not competent at law as the Order is not an order which stands alone. Furthermore, by Enclosure, the Appellant/Plaintiffs have amended the Order under the slip rule. Accordingly, the Order appealed against in this Appeal no longer exists as it has been taken by events.

[9] It was further contended that there is nothing to be appealed in this Appeal. The Correct remedy for the Appellant/Plaintiffs was to amend the Order before filing their Appeal. Alternatively, since they insisted on the amending the order at this very late s