The court emphasized the importance of allowing intervention to protect the rights of parties affected by litigation outcomes, ensuring a fair judicial process.

Headnote:This judgment concerns an application for leave to intervene as a party in a motor vehicle accident case. Relevant to the Road Transport Act 1987, the court found the appellant's interests at stake. Issues included whether intervention's necessity justified the appeal. The court determined that leave should be granted to prevent injustice against the appellant's rights.

Table of Content
1. application for leave to intervene due to potential prejudice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

[1] By Enclosure 26, the Appellant applied (i) that leave be granted to the Appellant to be added as a party or co-defendant to the proceeding; (ii) that time be extended for filing the application (if any); and (iii) that stay be granted in respect of the trial proceedings until the court orders otherwise.

[2] The application was dismissed and hence this appeal. This appeal is by way of a re-hearing.

[3] The grounds of the application are inter alia as follows:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

2018 MarsdenLR 291

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK SRI AMANALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD – AppellantVersusNORA KARU (ENCL 26) – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: SRA-12A-1/11-2017]

The court emphasized the importance of allowing intervention to protect the rights of parties affected by litigation outcomes, ensuring a fair judicial process.

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK SRI AMAN
ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
NORA KARU (ENCL 26) – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: SRA-12A-1/11-2017]