Quay Chew Soon J:

Grounds of Decision Introduction

[1]The Proposed Intervener filed this notice of application dated 24.9.2025 in Enclosure 28 for the following orders:- (a) the Proposed Intervener be allowed to intervene in the proceedings herein; and (b) for a stay of execution.

[2]On 17.11.2025, I dismissed Enclosure 28. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background facts

[3]At the request of the 1^st Defendant, the Plaintiff (“P”) granted term loan facilities amounting to RM 15,750,000. The purpose of the term loan was to partly finance the purchase of a single - storey detached factory cum open sided warehouse with an annexed double storey office building situated at Bukit Kemuning, Shah Alam, Selangor (“property).

[4]The 2^nd to 4^th Defendants are the guarantors for the term loan facilities.

[5]As security for the term loan facilities, a first party charge was created over the property in favour of P on 16.8.2023 (“charge).

[6]On 20.1.2025, summary judgment was obtained against all the Defendants for a sum of RM 15,605,793.34 and RM 200,197.60 respectively.

Application to the land administrator for an order for sale

[7]On 1.7.2025, P issued Form 16D pursuant to section 254National Land Codesections 260261National Land Code

The Proposed Intervener’s case

[8]The Proposed Intervener’s case is this.

[9]The 1^st Defendant had entered into a sale and purchase agreement dated 11.10.2022 to purchase the property (“ SPA).

[10]Subsequent thereto, the 1^st Defendant and the Proposed Intervener entered into a Declaration of Trust dated 15.11.2022 (“ Declaration of Trust’). Wherein it was provided that the 1^st Defendant shall hold the property on trust for the Proposed Intervener, and shall deal with the property in accordance with the directions of the Proposed Intervener. The Proposed Intervener says that it possesses an interest in the property arising from the Declaration of Trust.

[11]It is noted however that the Proposed Intervener has not sought any substantive relief in Enclosure 28, save for the prayer to be joined as a party to these proceedings and for a stay of execution. It is also noted that the Declaration of Trust has never been registered in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.

[12]The Proposed Intervener canvassed the following arguments :

(a)it holds an interest in the property, which forms the subject matter of this action;

(b)there exists a valid Declaration of Trust, wherein the 1^st Defendant holds the property as trustee on behalf of the Proposed Intervener;

(c)the Proposed Intervener has discharged all financial obligations arising from the acquisition and financing of the property;

(d)the 1^st Defendant has breached its fiduciary duties as trustee by defaulting on the loan facilities granted by P, thereby exposing the property to the risk of foreclosure;

(e)the Proposed Intervener ought to be granted leave to intervene to protect its proprietary rights, which are directly and substantially affected by this suit; and

(f)unless leave to intervene is granted and execution stayed, the Proposed Interveners beneficial ownership of the property will be extinguished.

The law on intervener

[13]The law on intervener is encapsulated in Order 15 rule 6 (2) (b)Rules of Court 2012

[14]The test for an application to intervene requires the proposed intervener to demonstrate that he possesses a real and direct legal interest in the subject matter of the action, and not merely a commercial interest. Further, that his presence is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all issues in dispute.

[15](See the Privy Council decision in Pegang Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors Tajjul Ariffin bin Mustafa v Heng Cheng Hong

Decision

[16]I dismissed Enclosure 28 for the following reasons:

(a)Upon the entry of judgment, the proceedings herein are deemed concluded, leaving no basis for the Proposed Intervener to intervene thereafter; and

(b)This suit pertains to a monetary claim against the Defendants arising from their default under the term loan f