The test for intervention by beneficiaries in estate proceedings differs between High Court and appellate levels, necessitating a demonstration of legal interest in the appeal's subject matter.

Introduction

[1] Appeals No: 02()-36-2009(W), 02()-37-2009(W) and 02()-38-2009(W) were all set for hearing before us on 18 May 2010.

[2] Upon the request of the parties concerned, we proceeded to hear appeal No: 02()-37-2009(W) only. It was also agreed by all parties concerned that the result of this appeal would bind the other two appeals.

[3] The appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal (COA) dated 8 May 2009 (the "decision") by which the COA allowed the application by the 2nd to 6th respondents (the "interveners") to intervene (the "intervener application") into the COA Civil Appeal Number W-02-432-2004. The application to intervene was made in the Appeal.

[4] Leave to appeal was granted by the Federal Court to the appellant on 12 October 2009 on the following question:

Whether the test for intervention by beneficiaries to the Estate into proceedings brought by administrators of the Estate at the High Court is the same as that for appellate proceedings.

[5] Leave to appeal was also granted to Shorga Sdn Bhd (appellant in Appeal NO 02()-38-2009(W)) and Raja Rajmah binti Raja Chik & 7 Others (appellants in Appeal NO 02()-36-2009(W)) on the same date and orders were made that a common record of Appeal be filed for the purposes of the three appeals. Appeals have also been lodged by the appellants in the other two appeals.

[6] The position taken by each of the three appellants is the same ie, that the decision was erroneous and ought to be set aside for there having been no basis in law and/or fact for the COA to have made the decision. In that regard, the COA ought to have dismissed the intervener application with costs.

Background Facts

[7] The material facts pertaining to the intervener application are as follows:

(a) The 1st respondent, Amanah Raya Berhad ("ARB") was appointed as the Administrator of the Estate of Raja Datuk Nong Chin bin Raja Ishak (the "deceased") by way of an order of Court dated 17 December 1996 granted in Kuala Lumpur High Court Petition NO S1-31-391-1996. As a matter of fact this was a consent order (Please see para 3 p 71, Record of Appeal vol 1/5, ARB's statement of claim dated 5 August 1998).

(b) ARB was at all material times and still is the Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased.

(c) In August 1998, ARB commenced proceedings against 13 defendants including all the appellants here in Kuala Lumpur High Court S2-22-546-1998 (the "ARB claim"). The claim was in respect of an alleged conspiracy to defraud the Estate of the deceased pertaining to certain shares alleged to have been owned by the deceased.

(d) Significantly, the Interveners (2nd-6th respondents) had as beneficiaries to the Estate of the Deceased in Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit NO D5-22-975-1994 instituted proceedings of a similar nature against all the appellants in the Appeals except the appellant herein (the "prior claim").

(e) An application was then made to strike out the claim by various defendants thereto. The High Court had on 9 March 1998 struck out the said claim. (See Record of Appeal vol 4/5, p 437 - 441).

(f) The appointment of ARB was then agreed to by the disputing parties.

(g) By the admission of the interveners, they had caused ARB to file the ARB claim. (See Record of Appeal vol 5/5 p 444).

[8] As mentioned above, the ARB claim was filed in August 1998.

[9] The claim proceeded to case management on more than ten occasions.

[10] Following from this, trial dates were fixed from 2 to 6 June 2003. These dates were however vacated by reason