ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

1. Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menolak permohonan memasukkan pihak ketiga sebagai pihak di dalam prosiding.

2. Penelitian kepada permohonan pihak ketiga itu menunjukkan hospital yang melakukan pembedahan dan rawatan terhadap Plaintif dicadangkan untuk dijadikan pihak ketiga.

3. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menolak permohonan tersebut disebabkan permohonan pihak ketiga telah dibuat lewat setelah perbicaraan utama kes ini telah selesai dan tarikh keputusan telah ditetapkan.

4. Mahkamah ini mendapati asas utama kepada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menolak permohonan pihak ketiga ini adalah kelewatan Defendan mengemukakan permohonan pihak ketiga tersebut.

Analisa

5. Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa Plaintif tidak boleh dipaksa untuk menamakan mana-mana orang sebagai Defendan. Ia adalah pertimbangan Plaintif semasa mengemukakan tuntutan. Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah boleh mempertimbangkan permohonan Defendan untuk menambah mana-mana pihak. Mahkamah Agung dalam kes Tajjul Arifin bin Mustafa v. Heng Chen Hong [1993] 2 MLJ 143 telah menggariskan pertimbangan seperti berikut:

Secondly, insofar as the power of the court to add a defendant on the application of the defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff is concerned, the jurisdiction of the court is entirely discretionary and the only fetter which RHC O. 15, r. 6(2)(b)(ii) places upon the exercise of the discretion which it gives to the judge of first instance is that it shall be exercised when there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which in the opinion of the court it would be just and convenient to determine as between the person sought to be joined and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter.

Thirdly, the objects of para 2(b)(ii) as to joinder of parties are generally speaking the same as the objects of the rules governing third party proceedings, that is to say: (1) to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the court to determine disputes between all parties to them in one action; and (2) to prevent the same or substantially the same questions or issues being tried all over again with possibly different results. (See Supreme Court Practice (1991) para 15/6/7 at p 193.)

Fourthly, the most scrupulous attention must be paid to the facts of previous cases cited to the court. This requirement is the anchor sheet of the doctrine of precedent according to which like cases must be decided alike. And so, the probability that a court will decide a particular case in the same way as would the court which decided one of the cases cited will become less and less as the differences between the facts of the two cases increase. We are thus reminded, of the oft quoted passage in the judgment of Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem 15 which runs as follows:

Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law but govern and are qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.

It is in the light of these principles that the cases of Hee Awa 2 and Chan Yee 3 should be considered. In other words, the judgment in those cases should be read in the light of the facts of those cases and not as imposing any fetter on the exercise of the discretion given to a judge when considering an application by the defendant for joinder of a defendant, over the objections of the plaintiff, in any new case.

6. Tindakan kes ini permohonan mengeluar notis pihak ketiga dibuat selepas hampir dua tahun prosiding ditutup. la juga dibuat setelah Mahkamah menetapkan tarikh keputusan pada 28.03.2025.

7. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah meneliti afidavit permohonan tersebut dan berpendapat tiada alasan yang dikemukakan bagi menjelaskan kelewatan