QUECK HAN TIONG vs CHIA CHIN KOON & ANOR (ENCL 53)

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 MarsdenLR 1874

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
QUECK HAN TIONG – Appellant
Versus
CHIA CHIN KOON & ANOR (ENCL 53) – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCC-646-09/2024]

Important Points

Proposed Intervener's application denied as he holds no legal or beneficial interest in the shares; his presence is unnecessary for complete adjudication of the ongoing dispute.

Subject

Civil Law - Intervention

Act Referred

Rules of Court 2012: S.O 15 r 6

Headnote

(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 15 r 6(2)(b) - Application for intervention - Proposed Intervener's request to become a party denied as his legal and beneficial interest in the shares has ceased post full payment by defendants - Court evaluates necessity of intervention for effective adjudication. (Paras 1-2, 9-10, 12-13)

(B) Interests in shares - Lack of legal interest by Proposed Intervener - Court holds that addition of the Proposed Intervener is unnecessary as disputes can be settled amongst the current parties involved without his presence. (Paras 11-13)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought the return of shares against the defendants, who contended that the shares were held on trust for the Proposed Intervener, who had been fully paid. The Proposed Intervener applied to intervene, arguing for the necessity of his inclusion for full resolution of the case.

Findings of Court:
The Proposed Intervener's presence was deemed unnecessary as he no longer had any legal or beneficial interest in the shares.

Issues: Whether the Proposed Intervener should be added as a party to ensure complete resolution of the disputes surrounding the shares.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Proposed Intervener does not hold any interest in the shares post-sale to the defendants, hence his involvement is not required for adjudication.

Result: Application to intervene dismissed with costs.

Petitioner Advocates:Wong Yee Chue,Ho Hui Ying,Jean Aw ,Respondent Advocate: Steven Tan Chee Qian,Max Chuah Chen Tee

Table of Content
1. intervention application and background facts (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. court's reasoning about ncy's lack of interest (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

Ong Chee Kwan J:

(Enclosure 53)

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 53 was an application filed by the Proposed Intervener, Neo Ching Yuen pursuant to O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 for leave to be joined as a party to the present proceedings. The substantive action concerns a claim by the plaintiff against the defendants for the return of certain shares on the basis that the defendants have failed to pay the agreed purchase price. The defendants dispute the claim and contend that the plaintiff is merely holding the shares on trust for Neo Ching Yuen and that they had duly paid the said Neo Ching Yuen in full for the shares.

[2] The Proposed Intervener's position is that he no longer holds any legal and or beneficial interest in the shares in question, having received full consideration for the same from the defendants. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, he sought to intervene on the basis that his participation in the action as a party is necessary in order for all matters in dispute in the cause or matter to be effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon.

[3] Having considered the affidavits and submissions of the parties, this Court was of the view that the Proposed Intervener's presence as a party is unnecessary and that it is not appropriate to add him as a party at all. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the application to intervene under encl 53 with costs.

Background Facts

[4] The Plaintiff was allotted 1,000,000 shares of a company known as Kujaya Management Sdn Bhd ("Kujaya Management").

[5] In the present Suit 646, the plaintiff claimed against the defendants for, inter alia, the return of 600,000 shares of Kujaya Management ("the Shares") 480,000 of which were transferred to the 1st Defendant and 120,000 of which were transferred to the 2nd Defendant sometime on 8 September 2021 pursuant to a sale but the payments of which the plaintiff contends have not been received.

[6] In their defence against the plaintiff's claims, the defendants contended that the plaintiff did not own the Shares but instead had held the Shares on trust for the Proposed Intervener, Neo Ching Yuen ("NCY"). The defendants averred in their Defence that payments for the Shares had been fully satisfied and made to NCY.

[7] Subsequent to the filing of this Suit 646, NCY filed an action in the High Court at Pulau Pinang vide Suit 148. In the said suit, NCY is seeking the following reliefs:

(a) declarations that the plaintiff herein holds shares in Kujaya Management, Kujaya Dormitories Sdn Bhd and Agensi Pekerjaan Kujaya Sdn Bhd on trust for NCY;

(b) a declaration that a loan of RM9,000,000.00 granted by the plaintiff herein to NCY is null and void;

(d) an injunction to restrain the plaintiff herein from selling or transferring the aforesaid shares held on trust.

Significantly, NCY is not seeking any claims in respect of the Shares against the plaintiff in Suit 148.

[8] By encl 53, NCY applied under O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 to intervene in the present Suit 646 and be added as a defendant to the action. It was contended that in deciding the plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the present Suit 646, this Court will have to determine if the Shares were held by the plaintiff on trust for NCY and that the plaintiff had no beneficial interest in the Shares. Accordingly, it was contended that the addition of NCY as a party to the present Suit 646 would ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter would be effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon.

Court's Considerations

[9] By NCY's own case, the Shares which form the subject matter of the dispute in the present Suit 646 had been disposed and sold by him to