LIBERTY INSURANCE BERHAD MUHAMMAD QAIRUL JAFNIE BIN ABDUL RANI PENCELAH MUHAMMAD FAIZ EZWAN BIN MUHAMAD NAZRI

LIBERTY INSURANCE BERHAD MUHAMMAD QAIRUL JAFNIE BIN ABDUL RANI PENCELAH MUHAMMAD FAIZ EZWAN BIN MUHAMAD NAZRI

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the cover note, which expressly commenced cover at 17/10/2017 20:09:48 and referenced in the policy documents, was the binding contract and the premium was paid then; therefore insurance did not exist at the time of the accident at 09:30. The insured breached the statutory duty of disclosure (Schedule 9 s4(1) FSA) and the duty of utmost good faith (Schedule 9 s5(9) FSA), rendering the insurance void/unenforceable; consequently the insurer was entitled to a declaration under s96(3) RTA. The Penang High Court had jurisdiction and the Originating Summons was the proper mode.

Citation
PA-24NCvC-231-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Liberty Insurance Berhad (16688K) (formerly known as Uni Asia General Insurance Berhad); 1st Defendant: Muhammad Qairul Jafnie bin Abdul Rani (No K/P: 901121-02-6273); 2nd Defendant: Muhammad Faiz Ezwan bin Muhamad Nazri (No. K/P: 011220-02-1019)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 December 2023
Case Number
PA-24NCvC-231-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (declaration Under Section 96(3) Road Transport Act 1987) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons
Outcome
Originating Summons allowed. Section 96(3) declaration granted that insurer is not liable; stay lifted; costs awarded; case management directions given.
Legal Topics
Section 96(3) Declaration, Utmost Good Faith (uberrimae Fidei), Non Disclosure of Material Facts, Assumption of Risk, Jurisdiction of High Court Branches, Mode of Proceedings (os Vs Writ), Policy Commencement Time, Lifting of Stay Order, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Insurance Law Road Transport Law Contract Law Financial Services Regulation Civil Procedure Section 96(3) Declaration Utmost Good Faith (uberrimae Fidei) Non Disclosure of Material Facts +6 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liberty Insurance Berhad (16688K) (formerly known as Uni Asia General Insurance Berhad)

Plaintiff/applicant

Muhammad Qairul Jafnie bin Abdul Rani (No K/P: 901121-02-6273)

1st Defendant

Muhammad Faiz Ezwan bin Muhamad Nazri (No. K/P: 011220-02-1019)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (declaration Under Section 96(3) Road Transport Act 1987) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurer is entitled to a declaration under s96(3) RTA that the insurance is void or unenforceable and thus not liable for any judgment obtained in the personal injury suit
  2. 2 Whether the Penang High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Originating Summons
  3. 3 Whether there are inconsistent insurance contracts/policies and which document governs commencement of cover

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the cover note, which expressly commenced cover at 17/10/2017 20:09:48 and referenced in the policy documents, was the binding contract and the premium was paid then; therefore insurance did not exist at the time of the accident at 09:30. The insured breached the statutory duty of disclosure (Schedule 9 s4(1) FSA) and the duty of utmost good faith (Schedule 9 s5(9) FSA), rendering the insurance void/unenforceable; consequently the insurer was entitled to a declaration under s96(3) RTA. The Penang High Court had jurisdiction and the Originating Summons was the proper mode.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons allowed. Section 96(3) declaration granted that insurer is not liable; stay lifted; costs awarded; case management directions given.

Orders

  • Declaration under section 96(3) Road Transport Act 1987 that the insurance was void/unenforceable and the plaintiff-insurer is not liable to pay any judgment sum in ASMC Suit 607
  • Costs of RM7,000 to be paid by the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff by 15.1.2024; costs subject to allocatur