1. ) Ranjan Paramalingam 2. ) Jude Micory Lobijin 1. ) PERSATUAN PENDUDUK TAMAN BANGSAR (MENYAMAN MELALUI PRESIDENNYA NITESH MALANI) 2. ) DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

1. ) Ranjan Paramalingam 2. ) Jude Micory Lobijin 1. ) PERSATUAN PENDUDUK TAMAN BANGSAR (MENYAMAN MELALUI PRESIDENNYA NITESH MALANI) 2. ) DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred by applying Order 15 intervention principles instead of the specific Order 53 framework for judicial review; because part of the appellants' property (side road/back-lane) fell within the gated and guarded scheme under challenge, the appellants had a direct legal interest and were "persons directly affected" and/or "proper persons" under Order 53 r.4(2) and r.8(1); accordingly the High Court's dismissal of Enclosure 30 was set aside and the appellants were allowed to intervene and be joined as respondents to JR 198.

Citation
W-01(IM)-37-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Proposed Intervener; Appellant in This Appeal: Ranjan Paramalingam; Proposed Intervener; Appellant in This Appeal: Jude Micory Lobijin; Applicant in JR 198; First Respondent in This Appeal: Persatuan Penduduk Taman Bangsar; Respondent in JR 198; Second Respondent in This Appeal: Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur (DBKL)
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 February 2023
Case Number
W-01(IM)-37-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (challenge to Local Authority Decision) With Related Civil Nuisance/data Protection Litigation; Appellate Intervention Appeal / Court of Appeal Hearing Appeal Against High Court Dismissal of Intervention Application (enclosure 30); Intervention Allowed by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision dismissing Enclosure 30 set aside; Appellants allowed to intervene and be joined as respondents to JR 198
Legal Topics
Intervention in Judicial Review, Order 53 Rules of Court, Directly Affected Person, Leave to Intervene, Gated and Guarded Neighbourhood Scheme, Approval by Local Authority, Abuse of Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Local Government Law Tort (nuisance) Data Protection Law Intervention in Judicial Review Order 53 Rules of Court Directly Affected Person +4 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranjan Paramalingam

Proposed Intervener; Appellant in This Appeal

Jude Micory Lobijin

Proposed Intervener; Appellant in This Appeal

Persatuan Penduduk Taman Bangsar

Applicant in JR 198; First Respondent in This Appeal

Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur (DBKL)

Respondent in JR 198; Second Respondent in This Appeal

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (challenge to Local Authority Decision) With Related Civil Nuisance/data Protection Litigation; Appellate Intervention Appeal / Court of Appeal Hearing Appeal Against High Court Dismissal of Intervention Application (enclosure 30); Intervention Allowed by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed interveners are "persons directly affected" under Order 53 r.4(2) Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether proposed interveners are "proper persons" to be heard under Order 53 r.8(1) Rules of Court 2012
  3. 3 Whether High Court erred by applying Order 15 intervention test instead of Order 53 in judicial review context

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred by applying Order 15 intervention principles instead of the specific Order 53 framework for judicial review; because part of the appellants' property (side road/back-lane) fell within the gated and guarded scheme under challenge, the appellants had a direct legal interest and were "persons directly affected" and/or "proper persons" under Order 53 r.4(2) and r.8(1); accordingly the High Court's dismissal of Enclosure 30 was set aside and the appellants were allowed to intervene and be joined as respondents to JR 198.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision dismissing Enclosure 30 set aside; Appellants allowed to intervene and be joined as respondents to JR 198

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court order dated 21 December 2021 dismissing Enclosure 30
  • Order in terms of Enclosure 30 granted: serve cause papers and add Ranjan Paramalingam and Jude Micory Lobijin as respondents/interveners in JR 198