Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3242
HIGH COURT MALAYA GEORGETOWN
PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
TAN PEK GAN & ORS – Respondent
[Appeal No: PA-12A-9-06-2024]
The principle of locus standi must be established before addressing the merits of a case, emphasizing that a party recognized as such retains the right to participate in proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 29 - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 55 r 2 - Appeal from Subordinate Court - Re-hearing principle established; factual findings of lower court should not be disturbed unless clearly wrong - Locus standi must be determined before merits - Appellant's applications were struck out due to lack of locus standi, but appeal allowed as Appellant was recognized as a party. (Paras 3, 13, 23)
(B) Locus Standi - The issue of locus standi is a prerequisite to adjudication on merits; a party must demonstrate a legal interest in the matter before the court. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a decision of the Sessions Court which struck out the Appellant's applications regarding an enforcement order. The Appellant was initially recognized as a party in an enforcement application but later deemed to lack locus standi. (Paras 1, 13)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the Sessions Court erred in determining that the Appellant lacked locus standi after previously recognizing them as a party. The appeal was allowed and the applications remitted for substantive hearing. (Paras 14, 23)
Issues: The main issue was whether the Sessions Court's decision to classify the Appellant as lacking locus standi was erroneous after previously designating them as a party. (Paras 15, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once a party is recognized as such, they retain the right to participate in proceedings, and the Sessions Court's contradictory stance was incorrect. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Appeal allowed, and applications remitted for substantive hearing.
Introduction
[1] This appeal has presented a significant legal issue for the High Court to examine, serving as a reference for the Lower Courts. In this judgment, the Plaintiff is the Respondent and Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad is the Appellant/3rd Defendant.
[2] This is an appeal against the decision delivered by the Learned Sessions Court Judge (HMS) on 13 June 2024, who has struck out (batal) the application filed by the Appellant/3rd Defendant which was made through Lampiran 7 pertaining to the request to set aside the dated O 3 November 2023 and Lampiran 10 (concerning the application to suspend or stay the enforcement of the dated Order 3 November 2023)
Principles Of Appeal From A Subordinate Court
[3] All civil appeals from a Subordinate Court shall be by way of re-hearing [see s 29 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and O 55 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2012].
(i) In Chan Lai Yoke & Anor v. ESS Engineering Sdn Bhd (Encl 64) , held that:
"Order 55 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that all appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing. The White Book on the Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 Vol 1, p 812 at para 55/2/1 states as follows:
In a re-hearing, a judge is not tasked to consider whether the lower Court judge had exercised his discretion correctly or had properly considered the relevant material. He would consider the case as if it came before him for the first time."
(ii) In China Airlines Ltd v. Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal ; ; [1996] 1 AMR 2233, the Federal Court held:
"[2] It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal, where facts have to be reviewed, it is undesirable that the factual findings of the Court below be disturbed by the appellate Court unless it appears that those findings are clearly wrong; and it is even more undesirable to do so where the conclusions reached, to a large extent, depended on the credibility of the witnesses and the impression formed by the Court which has seen them and judged their honesty and accuracy.
[3] However, there is clear authority that a distinction can be drawn between the finding of a specific fact which depends upon the credibility of witnesses, and a finding of fact which depends upon inferences drawn from other facts."
(iii) In Corsa Tech Sdn Bhd v. YTB Impression Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] MLRHU 1642 , at [27(2)], held that:
[27] As explained in Dr Hari Krishnan:
...
(2) if a trial Court's GOJ is not a 'speaking' one, such a fact does not ipso facto mean that the appellate Court should reverse the trial judge's decision and order a retrial. In such an event, the appellate Court has a judicial duty to sieve through the appeal records to determine whether there should be any appellate intervention regarding the trial Court's decision."
[Emphasis Added]
(In addition, please refer to the case of Mohammad Hafizi Bahari & Anor v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal ; [2024] 4 MLJ 223; [2024] 5 AMR 685)
Principles Of Locus Standi
[4] The decision made by the Learned Sessions Court Judge to address and resolve the issue of locus standi in this case is highly precise. This aligns with the rulings established in the decision of previous cases which decided that the issue of locus standi is the main issue that needs to be decided first before the merits are decided.
[5] In Lee Freddie & Ors v. Majlis Perbandaran Petaling Jaya & Anor ; , Mahadev Shankar J (as he then was) held that:
"'Locus standi on the other hand is literally a place of standing. In the legal arena, it has become a place to stand in Court, or a right to appear in a Court of justice on a given question. That right is given to a person if he is suing to enforce some private right or even some public right provided the interference with that public right causes direct damage to him. To avoid a situation of asking which came first, the chicken or the egg, one has to determine first whether the right or legitimate expectation arises. A denial of locus st
