The Court upheld the validity of a High Court Order under the Mental Health Act despite alleged procedural non-compliance, asserting inherent jurisdiction only applies in exceptional cases of manifest illegality.

JUDGMENT

Annand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant has commenced these proceedings through an Originating Summons seeking inter alia the following orders:

(a) that the High Court Order dated 13 July 2020 in Penang High Court Originating Summons No PA-24NCVC-336-06/2020 be declared impeached and/or annulled;

(b) alternatively, the conversion of these proceedings to a writ action if the Court finds that there exist issues that need to be decided via a full trial.

[2] With the advance of technology and with a view of being more efficient, the Courts in Malaysia have in the past decade utilized the Case Management System (hereinafter referred to as "the said CMS") whereby parties in a case are given access to and case managements as well as non-contested hearings are conducted / scheduled via the said CMS which are commonly termed as "e-reviews". This case highlights the importance of maintaining accurate minutes of any Court proceedings conducted via the said CMS.

[3] This was a case where utilizing the said CMS, an Order was made on the 13 July 2020. Whilst the minutes and the sealed Court Order reflect that such Court Order was made by the learned High Court Judge on that date, the Plaintiff herein seeks to impeach or annul the same primarily based on a contention that such Order was in fact made by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (hereinafter referred to as "the said SAR") without the necessary authority and hence such Court Order ought to be set aside due to lack of jurisdiction.

[4] Upon reading the cause papers and written submissions as well as hearing oral submissions by learned counsel for both parties, I had dismissed the application with costs. I will hereinbelow set out the facts, the grounds for this application, the rival contentions of the parties and my reasons for having dismissed this application.

Background Facts

[5] The 1st Defendant ("Segar") was allegedly involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Applicant herein ("Tan") on 1 August 2015 which has resulted in the 1st Defendant sustaining injuries that rendered him disabled (OKU) and mentally incapacitated.

[6] In light of the above, and with a view of intending to initiate civil proceedings via a motor vehicle accident (hereinafter referred to as "the said MVA") claim in the Sessions Court, the 2nd Defendant herein ("Kamalam"), an aunty of the 1st Defendant filed an Originating Summons No PA-24NCVC-336-06/2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the said OS 336") on 10 June 2020, seeking the following relief:

(a) to be granted leave to initiate a civil action for and on behalf of Nyanasegar A/L Muniandy that was involved in the motor vehicle accident on 1 August 2015;

(b) to be granted leave to represent Nyanasegar A/L Muniandy as his Litigation Representative pursuant to s 71 Mental Health Act 2001 ;

(c) to be granted leave to receive any proceeds from the civil proceedings and use them for the benefit of Nyanasegar A/L Muniandy pursuant to s 71 Mental Health Act 2001 ; and

(d) an order to declare Nyanasegar A/L Muniandy to be a mentally incapacitated person pursuant to O 76 Rules of 2012.

[7] In support of the application in OS 336, the 2nd Defendant had averred that the 1st Defendant suffered from mental illness rendering him unable to care and manage his daily activities and had tendered as exhibits several medical reports.

[8] On 13 July 2020, the Penang High Court granted an Order allowing the application in OS 336 thereby granting leave to the 2nd Defendant to represent the 1st Defendant as his litigation representative and to initiate the said MVA claim (hereinafter referred to as "the said 13 July 2020 High Court Order").

[9] Pursuant to the said 13 July 2020 High Court Order, the 2nd Defendant then commences a civil action in the Butterworth Sessions Court vide Civil Suit No PB-B53KJ-25-04/2021 for special and general damages suffered by the 1st Defendant arising from the said motor vehicle accident. The said MVA case is now fixed for Hearing befo