Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1296
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SEMANTAN ESTATE (1952) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: W-01(A)-414-08-2019]
Only parties with a direct legal interest qualify as 'proper persons' for intervention in judicial review proceedings under O 53 R 8 of the Rules of Court, 2012.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 53 Rule 8 – Judicial Review – Appeal against the Intervener High Court Order allowing a party without direct interest to intervene in the appellant's mandamus proceeding – The court found the 8th respondent lacked the necessary direct interest to intervene, thus the order was set aside. (Paras 7, 8, 60)
(B) Judicial Review – Proper person – The phrase 'proper person' must reference individuals with a direct interest in the proceedings as established in Majlis Agama Islam Selangor and clarified in subsequent cases, emphasizing the necessity of a direct legal relationship for intervention in judicial review matters. (Paras 24, 29, 60)
(C) Company Law – Shareholder rights – Shareholders do not possess direct legal rights to interfere with the enforcement of company judgments, which must be pursued by the company itself, especially in cases of judicial review where the company is in liquidation. (Paras 44, 51)
Facts of the case: The appellant sought a judicial review to enforce a past High Court judgment regarding land possession against the 1st respondent. An 8th respondent intervened claiming to represent the interests of shareholders and sought a settlement, but the appellant contested this claim stating no legal relationship existed.
Findings of Court: The appeal was allowed, affirming that the 8th respondent was not a proper party due to lack of direct interest; thus, the High Court's leave for intervention was set aside.
Issues: Key issues included whether the 8th respondent had a direct interest in the judicial review application and whether the High Court erred in granting them leave to intervene.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that only parties demonstrating a direct interest as 'proper persons' could intervene, backing this conclusion with references to statutory and case law principles.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs awarded to the appellant.
Introduction
[1] This is the appellant's appeal against the whole decision of the High Court made on 8 July 2019 ("Intervener High Court Order") allowing the 8th respondent's Notice of Application dated 28 May 2019 under O 53 r 8 Rules of 2012 ("Intervener Application").
Judicial Review
[2] The appellant's application for judicial review No WA-25-44-02/2017 seeks orders to give effect to a judgment of the High Court dated 29 December 2009 in favour of the appellant against the 1st respondent in High Court Civil Suit No: S-21-213-2003 ("Mandamus Application").
[3] On 13 May 2019, leave of Mandamus was granted by the High Court to the appellant to compel the 1st to 7th respondents to:
(i) Transfer and cause to be transferred the 263.272 acres of Land under CT 17038 Mukim Batu ("the Land") to the Applicant free of encumbrances and liabilities, including but not limited to registering the Applicant as the proprietor of the Land;
(ii) Take and cause all the necessary steps to be taken to register the Applicant as the proprietor of the Land, free of encumbrances and liabilities;
(iii) Execute and cause to be executed all instruments of transfer necessary to effect a transfer of the Land free of encumbrances and liabilities to the Applicant;
(iv) Issue and cause to be issued documents of title to the Land free of encumbrances and liabilities in the name of the Applicant;
(v) Prepare, change, cancel, delete, convert and/or deliver the relevant register document(s) of title, issuing documents of title or any other register of instruments relating to the Land, including any memorial or entering in the relevant register of titles and documents so as to vest the registered proprietorship in the Land free of encumbrances in the name of the Applicant; and
(vi) Return and cause to be returned and make all necessary directions, arrangements, preparations and/or take all necessary actions in respect of returning any lands over possession of the Land to the Applicant as the lawful proprietor and owner of the Land.
The Intervener Application
[4] The Intervener Application is for inter alia leave to intervene in the appellant's Mandamus Application under O 53 r 8 of ROC . The application is premised on the claim that the 8th respondent is a proper person to intervene in the appellant's application for judicial review and be added as the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent claims that the majority shareholders/ contributories of the appellant have agreed to transfer 50% of its share to the 8th respondent and appointed and authorised the 8th respondent on behalf of the shareholders/contributories to negotiate a settlement between the appellant and the Federal Government.
[5] The appellant denied the allegations and objected to the Intervener Application. The objection is premised on the ground that the 8th respondent has no legal relationship with the appellant and has no right to interfere with the appellant's actions to give effect to the judgment in the appellant's favour.
[6] The High Court granted leave to the 8th respondent to intervene in the appellant's application for judicial review under O 53 r 8 of Rules of 2012 as a proper person and be added as the 8th respondent ("Intervener High Court Order").
The Appeal
[7] The appeal concerns the decision of the Intervener High Court Order which came before us. Having heard the appellant's appeal and considered the oral submissions and the written submissions by the appellant's and the 8th respondent's counsel, the SFC representing the 1st to 7th respondents abstain from making any submissions, we find there is merit in the appellant's appeal. We are satisfied that the 8th respondent has no direct interest in the appellant's action and therefore is not a proper person under O 53 r 8 of the Rules of 2012 to intervene.
[8] It is our unanimous decision that the appellant's appeal is allowed with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to allocatur against the 8th respondent. The Intervener High Cour
