S Nantha Balan JC:

INTRODUCTION

[1]This case involves an allegation by an insurer that there is fraud and collusion between their insured (the defendant) and the third party claimant (the plaintiff) in a running down action. The insurers, who would be liable to satisfy any judgment against their insured/defendant by virtue of s 96Road Transport Act 1987

[2]Thus, the issue that arose for consideration in this case is whether in a running down action, where insurers are already having conduct of the defence on behalf of their insured/defendant, may nevertheless be allowed (under O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of Court 2012) to intervene and added as a co-defendant where they have reason to believe that there is fraud and collusion between the insured/defendant and the plaintiff.

[3]The matter came before me by way of an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant against the decision of the Sessions Court at Georgetown in Summons No 53–455–05 of 2012 (the ‘running down action’) which was handed down on 9 May 2013 allowing the notice of application filed by Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd (‘P & O’), the intervener/respondent and granting leave to intervene pursuant to O 15 r 6 of the Rules of Co