Direct interest is essential for intervention in judicial reviews; the court may allow participation as amicus curiae if appropriate.

[1] The appellants appeal against the decision of the learned trial judge who allowed the respondent, Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (MAIWP) to intervene and made as one of the respondents to the judicial review application. The matter came up for hearing on 19 July 2016 and we reserved judgment. The judicial review application has not been finally disposed of in the High Court. My learned brother, Zamani A Rahim JCA and sister, Zaleha Yusof JCA have read the judgment and approved the same.

[2] We do not wish to set out the full facts and issues in this case as it has been set out by the learned trial judge and also by the Court of Appeal in the same matter where leave to pursue the declarations was allowed. (See Jerry WA Dusing @ Jerry W Patel & Anor v. Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Anor, [2015] 1 MLJ 675 ; [2015] 1 AMR 238.)

[3] The Memorandum of Appeal of the appellants reads as follows:

"1. The learned judge erred in finding that MAIWP has a direct interest and is a proper person under O 53 r 8(1) of the Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012") to be heard in opposition to the appellants' judicial review application.

2. The learned judge erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all that the appellants' judicial review application pertains to the 2nd respondent's decision prohibiting the use of the word "Allah" in all publications ofthe appellants vide a letter dated 24 November 2007 made pursuant to the 2nd and 3rd respondents' Government directive dated 5 December 1986 bearing the reference KDN:S.59/3/9/A Kit.2 which unlawfully interferes with the constitutional rights of the appellants to manage their own religious affairs and the religious freedom of the appellants' congregationists to profess and practise their religion and that these are matters in which MAIWP has no direct interest.

3. The learned judge erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all and to duly apply the ratio decidendi in Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors, ("Bong Boon Chuen") a decision of the Federal Court which held that the phrase 'proper person' in O 53 r 8(1)of RC 2012 must be read as referring to "persons with direct interest" for the proposed intervener to be allowed to be joined as a party.

4. The learned judge erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all that the test to be applied for the question whether a person has a direct interest as established in Bong Boon Chuen is whether the intended intervener's rights against or liabilities to any party to an action in respect of the subject matter of the action will be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action.

5. The learned judge erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all the 'direct interest' test established in Bong Boon Chuen when in determining whether MAIWP has direct interest she considered the nature of the reliefs sought by the appellants without relating it to how MAIWP's rights against or liabilities to the appellants in their judicial review application are directly affected by any order which may be made in the said application.

6. The learned judge erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all that MAIWP does not have any rights against or liabilities to the appellants in their judicial review application and hence, cannot conceivably or logically be directly affected by any order that may be made in the absence of any such rights or liabilities.

7. The learned judge erred in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all and to reject MAIWP's purported direct interest in the appellants' judicial review applicat