Unsecured creditors may intervene in judicial management proceedings based on demonstrated legal interest; striking out application deemed premature until full substantive hearing.

(Enclosures 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 40, 42, 44, 46, 50, 52, 60, 62, 71,73, 75, 78, 80, 91, 94, 123 & 125)

Introduction

[1] The Applicant, Ace Holdings Berhad ("AHB"), seeks to place itself under judicial management pursuant to s 405 of the Companies Act 2016 (" CA 2016").

[2] A total of twelve (12) proposed interveners have applied to intervene in these proceedings and, in most cases, have additionally sought leave pursuant to s 410(c) CA 2016 to commence or continue legal proceedings against the Applicant.

[3] One of the proposed interveners, Dato' Azmi bin Jaafar, also filed encl 80, an application to strike out the judicial management application pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.

[4] This judgment addresses three key issues: (i) Whether the proposed interveners are entitled to intervene in the judicial management application; (ii) Whether the judicial management application should be struck out at this stage; and (iii) Whether leave ought to be granted under s 410(c) for the proposed interveners to proceed with or commence legal actions.

I. Whether The Proposed Interveners May Intervene

[5] The basis of the proposed interveners' applications to intervene is that they are creditors of AHB with existing or pending legal claims, and the outcome of the JM application will significantly affect their rights and remedies.

[6] All proposed interveners rely on the principle that a party whose legal rights or obligations are directly affected by the relief sought in a proceeding is entitled to intervene under O 15 r 6(2)(b).

[7] The Applicant, AHB, objects to the intervention applications. It argues, among others, that unsecured creditors are not entitled to intervene or be heard in JM applications. In support of this, AHB relies heavily on the Court of Appeal's decision in Desa Tiasa Sdn Bhd v. CME Group Berhad & Anor [B-02(IM)-626-04/2023], which it contends stands for the proposition that unsecured creditors have no locus to be heard in JM applications.

[8] In reply, the proposed interveners submit that Desa Tiasa has no binding effect as there is no written judgment. They rely on the case of Tetuan Wan Shahrizal Hari & Co v. PP 2023 MarsdenLR 181 ; [2023] 4 MLJ 1; ; [2023] 4 AMR 389 , where the Federal Court held that an unwritten decision cannot constitute binding precedent as it lacks a ratio decidendi. Accordingly, the proposed interveners argue that the decision in Desa Tiasa cannot preclude unsecured creditors from intervening where they have demonstrated a legitimate legal interest.

[9] I agree with the submissions of the proposed interveners on this point. The ruling in Tetuan Wan Shahrizal is clear: an appellate Court decision that is not supported by written grounds cannot be treated as binding precedent. Without reasons, the decision lacks a discernible ratio that can guide the lower courts.

[10] In contrast, there are several High Court decisions, namely, Goldpage Assets Sdn Bhd v. Unique Mix Sdn Bhd (Encls 10, 16, 20 & 26) 2020 MarsdenLR 1321 , Gigatech Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Engreen Sdn Bhd (formerly Known As 'eg Chemicals & Engineering Sdn Bhd') [2022] MLRHU 3186; [2023] 11 MLJ 457 and Novabrite Lighting Sdn Bhd v. Emrail Sdn Bhd (Balaranee Construction, proposed intervener) [2025] 2 MLRH 286 , which specifically held that unsecured creditors may be allowed to intervene in JM proceedings as the CA 2016 does not exclude them from participating.

[11] I respectfully concur with the said decisions. There is no provision in the CA 2016 or the Companies (Corporate Rescue Me