Low Hop Bing JCA:

[1] This application, by way of notice of motion in encl. (19a), is filed by the proposed interveners, seeking leave to intervene in this appeal as the second to sixth appellants.

[2] As the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 made no provision to regulate the instant application, r. 4 thereof mandates that the Rules of the High Court 1980 shall apply mutatis mutandis. In this regard, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 gives the court wide discretionary powers to order any person to be added as a party ie to grant leave to intervene where:

(i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined or adjudicated upon; or

(ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which in the opinion of the court it would be just and convenient to determine as between the parties to the cause or matter.

[3]Order 15 r. 6(3) thereof sets out the test for granting or refusing leave to intervene. For this purpose, the applicant or applicants must show his or their interest in the cause or matter in dispute or, as the case may be, the question or issue to be determined as between him and any party to the cause or matter: Rajoo Selvappan & Ors v. Abdul Bhari Kader Ibrahim & Ors [2005] 7 CLJ 326 HC, at pp 331 and 332.

[4] It is common ground that the applicants herein are the lawful beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased in question, and that they have beneficial interest in that estate. This beneficial interest is clearly and directly related to the subject matter of the instant appeal: see eg Sanders Lead Co Inc v. Entores Metal Brokers Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 452. The applicants' right against or liability to the other parties, who also include the other lawful beneficiaries in the same estate, would be directly affected by any order which may be made in the instant appeal. There can be no doubt that the applicants have fulfilled the test of establishing their interest for the purposes of obtaining leave to intervene: Inai Etike Sdn Bhd v. Mohd Fadzil bin Wadi & Ors; Soo Hong & Leong Kew Moi & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd & Anor [1997] 2 CLJ 548 CA; Takang Timber Sdn Bhd v. Government of Sarawak & Anor [1998] 3 CLJ Supp 413, HC; and Oscam SPA v. Overseas Union Bank (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor; Lim Keng Siew & Anor (Third Parties) [1999] 3 CLJ 399, HC. (Malaysian High Court Practice MLJ. Under O. 15 r. 6(2)(b).)

[5] We therefore unanimously allow this application and grant leave to the applicants to intervene in the instant appeal. Costs in the cause of this appeal.