JIWANESWARY A/P RAMAN ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD

JIWANESWARY A/P RAMAN ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD

An insurer whose statutory liability under s.96(1) RTA may be directly affected by a judgment against its insured has locus to intervene under Order 15 r.6; allowing intervention prevents duplicity and ensures disputed factual issues of tort (involvement/negligence) are determined by viva voce trial, and s.96(3) does not preclude such intervention.

Citation
K-04(IM)-443-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Jiwaneswary a/p Raman; Respondent (intervener/insurer): Etiqa General Takaful Berhad; 1st Defendant (driver): Prabu a/l Permaloo; 2nd Defendant (registered Owner): 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 (challenge to High Court Order Allowing Intervention) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Affirming Intervention
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision allowing insurer to intervene affirmed
Legal Topics
Intervention (joinder) Under Order 15 Rule 6 Rules of Courts 2012, Statutory Liability of Insurer Under S.96 Road Transport Act 1987, Declaratory Relief Under S.96(3) RTA, Duplicity of Proceedings, Locus Standi to Intervene
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Road Traffic Law Tort (negligence) Intervention (joinder) Under Order 15 Rule 6 Rules of Courts 2012 Statutory Liability of Insurer Under S.96 Road Transport Act 1987 Declaratory Relief Under S.96(3) RTA Duplicity of Proceedings +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jiwaneswary a/p Raman

Appellant

Etiqa General Takaful Berhad

Respondent (intervener/insurer)

Prabu a/l Permaloo

1st Defendant (driver)

Thayalan a/l Permaloo

2nd Defendant (registered Owner)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (challenge to High Court Order Allowing Intervention) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Affirming Intervention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an insurer has locus to intervene under Order 15 r.6 when its insured is sued
  2. 2 Whether insurer's liability under s.96(1) RTA being contingent on a judgment prevents intervention
  3. 3 Whether proof of fraud is required to permit intervention by insurer

Ratio Decidendi

An insurer whose statutory liability under s.96(1) RTA may be directly affected by a judgment against its insured has locus to intervene under Order 15 r.6; allowing intervention prevents duplicity and ensures disputed factual issues of tort (involvement/negligence) are determined by viva voce trial, and s.96(3) does not preclude such intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision allowing insurer to intervene affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM10,000 subject to payment of allocatur; High Court decision affirmed