Insurers may intervene in trials involving their insured to protect interests, despite the contingent nature of liability under statutory provisions.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in allowing the respondent, an insurance company, to intervene in a trial of a running down case, under O 15 r 6 of the Rules of 2012. The appellant instituted civil action at Sungai Petani Magistrate Court against the driver and the registered owner of the car bearing registration number PFH 3246. The car was insured by the respondent.

The Background Facts

[2] Briefly, the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit at Sungai Petani Magistrate Court against Prabu a/l Permaloo, the 1st defendant, and Thayalan a/l Permaloo, the 2nd defendant. In the statement of claim, it was the appellant's pleaded case that on 9 May 2019 at about 8.45 am, the appellant was riding a motorcycle registration number KEA 6260 at Jalan Lencong Timur, Sungai Petani when a car bearing registration number PFH 3246 collided into her motorcycle from the rear. The car was driven by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was the registered owner of the car which was insured by the respondent.

[3] Before the trial at the Magistrate Court commenced, the respondent applied to intervene in the proceedings pursuant to O 15 r 6 Rules of 2012. In the affidavit in support of the application, which was attested by Chung Suet Yeen @ Gladys, the respondent's Head of Division of Motor Insurance Claim, the respondent inter alia averred that the 1st defendant and the car number PFH 3246 were not involved in the alleged accident. The respondent applied to be made a party to the proceedings to ensure that the dispute or matter could be effectively and completely determined by the Court.

[4] In the respondent's affidavit in support, in paras 8 and 11, these were averred:

"8. Namun demikian, saya menegaskan bahawa siasatan oleh Pemohon mendapati bahawa Defendan pertama dan motokar bernombor pendaftaran PFH 3246 sebenarnya tidak terlibat di dalam kemalangan tersebut.

...

11. Tambahan pula, saya sesungguhnya menyatakan bahawa Pemohon perlu dijadikan satu pihak di dalam tindakan ini supaya pemohon dapat membela tindakan Plaintif dan semua perkara-perkara yang dipertikaikan oleh Pemohon dapat didengar dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini secara efektif dan dengan sepenuhnya."

[Emphasis Added]

[5] The respondent's application to intervene was dismissed by the Magistrate. Reliance was placed inter alia to the decision of the High Court case Badruzamani Azmi v. Kurnia Insurance (M) Bhd, which dismissed an application by the insurance company to intervene on the ground among others, that the vehicle's insurer's liability under s 96(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1987 ("RTA") is a contingent statutory liability, contingent upon a judgment obtained against the insured. The Magistrate also opined that the respondent suffered no prejudice even if not made a party to the proceedings. Further, the Magistrate found that there was no evidence of fraud to allow the respondent intervention. In addition, the Magistrate was of the view that the delay of 6 months to file the application to intervene was not explained by the respondent.

[6] However, upon appeal by the respondent, the High Court overturned the decision of the Magistrate Court and allowed the respondent to intervene in the trial before the Magistrate Court. Applying the test to intervene in cases such as Pegang Mining Co Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors, , Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v. Dr Jamaluddin Dato' Mohd Jarjis , , and Johannes Koplan v. Aw Chen , [1970] 1 MLJ 220b the High Court Judge was of the view that the application to intervene should be