2011 MarsdenLR 2133

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
PASUPATHY KANAGASABY – Appellant
Versus
SYARIKAT KEMACHAYA SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No. S-22-589-2008]

An application to intervene in legal proceedings must be made before the conclusion of the proceedings; late applications lack merit.

Headnote:(A) Intervention - Applicability of Law - Federal Court decision in Hong Leong Bank Bhd v. Staghorn Sdn Bhd - Application to intervene must be made before conclusion of proceedings - Proposed interveners' application made 17 months post-judgment is untimely - Court cannot assist indolent litigants - Full trial had been conducted and disposed of. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)

(B) Trial Proceedings - The court highlighted that once proceedings conclude, the judge becomes functus officio and cannot entertain late interventions or applications. (Paras 9, 13)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff opposed the intervention by the second and third proposed interveners, arguing it was for delaying matters post-judgment under Enclosure 30 filed 17 months after a favorable judgment was rendered.

Findings of Court:
The application by the proposed interveners was dismissed as there were no proceedings to intervene in post-judgment, and the previous judge had erred in allowing it.

Issues: The key issue was the timeliness and legally permissible stage of intervention in relation to concluded proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that an application for intervention is invalid if made after proceedings have concluded, establishing the principle that courts will not aid indolent parties.

Result: Appeal allowed with costs.