PEMPETISYEN PREMGANESH A/L DR K GANAISAN 1. ) NAGALETCHUMY A/P THANGARASU 2. ) Lee Shir Min PENCELAH ALAI SUNDRAM @ BALASARASWATHY A/P SUPPIAH

PEMPETISYEN PREMGANESH A/L DR K GANAISAN 1. ) NAGALETCHUMY A/P THANGARASU 2. ) Lee Shir Min PENCELAH ALAI SUNDRAM @ BALASARASWATHY A/P SUPPIAH

The application to intervene was dismissed because the Proposed Intervener failed to demonstrate the requisite legal interest under Order 15 r 6(2)(b) ROC 2012: affidavit admissions and pleadings show the deceased owned the jewellery and the Proposed Intervener accepted the deceased's wish to divide them (thereby renouncing ownership); she produced no documentary proof or grant of letters of administration to assert proprietary rights, and any role she has is to give evidence as a witness rather than to be joined as a party.

Citation
BA-33-279-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Premganesh A/L Dr K Ganaisan; 1st Respondent: Nagaletchumy A/P Thangaraju; 2nd Respondent: Lee Shir Ming; Proposed Intervener: Alai Sundram @ Balasaraswathy A/P Suppiah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Case Number
BA-33-279-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition (family Law) / Interlocutory Application to Intervene Decided (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application to intervene dismissed
Legal Topics
Intervention Under Order 15 R 6(2)(b) ROC 2012, Divorce, Ownership of Jewellery, Locus Standi, Letters of Administration, Presumption of Advancement, Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Property Law Evidence Law Intervention Under Order 15 R 6(2)(b) ROC 2012 Divorce Ownership of Jewellery +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Premganesh A/L Dr K Ganaisan

Petitioner

Nagaletchumy A/P Thangaraju

1st Respondent

Lee Shir Ming

2nd Respondent

Alai Sundram @ Balasaraswathy A/P Suppiah

Proposed Intervener

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition (family Law) / Interlocutory Application to Intervene Decided (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Proposed Intervener has a legal interest sufficient to intervene under Order 15 r 6(2)(b) ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether any order in the divorce proceedings will directly affect the Proposed Intervener's rights or liabilities
  3. 3 Whether the Proposed Intervener renounced any proprietary rights by agreeing to the deceased's wishes and thus lacks locus standi

Ratio Decidendi

The application to intervene was dismissed because the Proposed Intervener failed to demonstrate the requisite legal interest under Order 15 r 6(2)(b) ROC 2012: affidavit admissions and pleadings show the deceased owned the jewellery and the Proposed Intervener accepted the deceased's wish to divide them (thereby renouncing ownership); she produced no documentary proof or grant of letters of administration to assert proprietary rights, and any role she has is to give evidence as a witness rather than to be joined as a party.

Court Disposition

Application to intervene dismissed

Orders

  • Application to intervene dismissed
  • Costs awarded to 1st Respondent