JIWANESWARY A/P RAMAN ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD

JIWANESWARY A/P RAMAN ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD

An insurer may intervene in ongoing Magistrates Court tort proceedings to present its factual defence (including alleging collusion) notwithstanding the availability of a statutory declaratory remedy under s.96(3) RTA; concerns about multiplicity are speculative and can be addressed by transferring the tort claim and any s.96(3) application to the same court, therefore intervention was properly allowed and the High Court order permitting intervention is upheld.

Citation
K-04(IM)-443-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff in Magistrates Court): Jiwaneswary a/p Raman; Respondent (insurer; Applicant/intervener): Etiqa General Takaful Berhad; Defendant / Alleged Tortfeasor: Prabu a/l Permaloo; Defendant / Alleged Tortfeasor: Thayalan a/l Permaloo
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 November 2022
Case Number
K-04(IM)-443-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Supporting Judgment on Appeal Affirming High Court Order on Intervention
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order allowing insurer to intervene is upheld and Magistrates Court order disentitling respondent to intervene is not reinstated
Legal Topics
Intervention by Insurer in Tort Proceedings, Statutory Liability Under S.96(2) RTA, Declaratory Relief to Avoid Liability Under S.96(3) RTA, Allegations of Collusion/fraud, Multiplicity of Proceedings and Transfer to Same Court
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort (negligence) Insurance Law Civil Procedure Road Transport Act Matters Intervention by Insurer in Tort Proceedings Statutory Liability Under S.96(2) RTA Declaratory Relief to Avoid Liability Under S.96(3) RTA Allegations of Collusion/fraud +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jiwaneswary a/p Raman

Appellant (plaintiff in Magistrates Court)

Etiqa General Takaful Berhad

Respondent (insurer; Applicant/intervener)

Prabu a/l Permaloo

Defendant / Alleged Tortfeasor

Thayalan a/l Permaloo

Defendant / Alleged Tortfeasor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Supporting Judgment on Appeal Affirming High Court Order on Intervention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an insurer may intervene in Magistrates Court proceedings brought by a third party against the insured
  2. 2 Whether the insurer must instead pursue a declaratory application under s.96(3) RTA to avoid liability
  3. 3 Whether allowing intervention would cause impermissible multiplicity of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

An insurer may intervene in ongoing Magistrates Court tort proceedings to present its factual defence (including alleging collusion) notwithstanding the availability of a statutory declaratory remedy under s.96(3) RTA; concerns about multiplicity are speculative and can be addressed by transferring the tort claim and any s.96(3) application to the same court, therefore intervention was properly allowed and the High Court order permitting intervention is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order allowing insurer to intervene is upheld and Magistrates Court order disentitling respondent to intervene is not reinstated

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • High Court order permitting Etiqa General Takaful Berhad to intervene in the Magistrates Court proceedings is upheld.