A proposed intervener must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the subject matter of the action to justify intervention; mere commercial interests are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

Enclosure 21 — Proposed Intervener's Application To Intervene In These Proceedings

Introduction

[1] On 9 July 2024, this Court had dismissed the application by Hoe Hee Liang (the "Proposed Intervener") to intervene in these proceedings and be made a defendant. His application was made pursuant to O 15 r 6 of the Rules of 2012 RoC. This Court heard arguments from his counsel and the Plaintiff. The submissions and cause papers were considered. The Proposed Intervener had since appealed to the Court of Appeal against this Court 's decision. Below is this Court 's reasoned decision.

Background

[2] The subject matter of this action involves a piece of freehold land held under Geran 436628, Lot 46045, District of Johor Bahru, State of Johor Darul Takzim (the Land). The First Defendant is the registered owner of the Land. The Land was charged to the Third Defendant as security for facilities granted by the Third Defendant to the First Defendant._The Proposed Intervener, Hoe Hee Liang, is the director and 85% shareholder of the First Defendant. He is also the personal guarantor for the facilities granted by the Third Defendant to the First Defendant.

[3] The First Defendant defaulted on repayment of the facilities. Consequently, the Third Defendant appointed the Second Defendant as Receiver of the First Defendant. The Plaintiff obtained an ad-interim injunction on 25 March 2024 restraining the Defendants from dealing with the Land pending disposal of the Plaintiffs injunction application in Encl 4. The inter-partes hearing for the injunction application has yet to be heard. There are also two other interlocutory applications to strike out the Plaintiff's suit by the Defendants, all to be heard shortly after the disposal of this application by the Proposed intervener.

Legal Framework For Intervention

[4] The law on intervention is well-established. O 15 r 6 RoC empowers the Court to permit intervention on two separate grounds which are:

a) The applicant's presence is necessary to ensure all matters in dispute may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or

b) a question or issue is arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed which would be just and convenient to determine as between the applicant and a party to the action.

[5] The test for intervention was laid down by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors; 1973 MarsdenLR 245 was whether a proposed intervener's 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. This test was affirmed by the Federal Court in Hong Leong Finance v. Staghorn & Other Appeals; 2008 MarsdenLR 4184 ; , which held that the party seeking to be added must show "sufficient interest in the subject matter of the action".

[6] This Court had also regarded the case of Securities Commission Malaysia v. Wong Shee Kai & Ors; [2021] 5 CLJ 411, where the High Court summarized the key principles:

a) The proposed intervener must show that their "legal interests" would be directly affected by any order or judgment in the action. Commercial interests alone are insufficient.

b) A direct legal interest must be established. An indirect or commercial interest does not satisfy the requirement.

c) The burden is on the proposed intervener to satisfy the Court that the requirements of O 15 r 6(2) have been met.

Analysis

[7] The Proposed Intervener argued that he has a direct legal interest in the subject matter of this action for the following reasons. As personal guarantor for the facilities, he claimed that his liability was dependent on the sale of the Land through foreclosure proceedings. He further argued that the ad-interim injunction if granted would restrain him, as an officer of the First Defendant, from dealing with or redeeming the Land. Additionally, he submitted that his liability for fees and cost