Teoh Teik Ooi [ Identity Card No.: 550519075233 ] AMMETLIFE INSURANCE BERHAD [ Company No.: 15743-P ]

Teoh Teik Ooi [ Identity Card No.: 550519075233 ] AMMETLIFE INSURANCE BERHAD [ Company No.: 15743-P ]

Appellant lacked locus standi and cause of action to pursue the MRTA policy because the policy was not listed as an asset of the deceased in the Form E schedule and the policy was held for AmBank as policyholder, therefore the claim could be dismissed under Order 14A as a question of law decided without full trial.

Citation
PA-12ANCvC-39-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff/administrator: Teoh Teik Oo; Respondent/defendant: Ammetlife Insurance Berhad; Defendant: Khaw Look Hing
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 December 2023
Case Number
PA-12ANCvC-39-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal Hearing and Judgment at High Court (permission/appeal Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Cause of Action, Order 14 a Summary Disposal, Administration of Small Estates, Mortgage Reducing Term Assurance (mrta), Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Succession/estate Law Locus Standi Cause of Action Order 14 a Summary Disposal Administration of Small Estates Mortgage Reducing Term Assurance (mrta) +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teoh Teik Oo

Appellant/plaintiff/administrator

Ammetlife Insurance Berhad

Respondent/defendant

Khaw Look Hing

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal Hearing and Judgment at High Court (permission/appeal Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant (administrator) had cause of action and locus standi to claim MRTA policy not listed in estate assets under Form E
  2. 2 Whether MRTA policy vested in or payable to AmBank as policyholder and therefore not claimable by administrator
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with court directions justified dismissal of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant lacked locus standi and cause of action to pursue the MRTA policy because the policy was not listed as an asset of the deceased in the Form E schedule and the policy was held for AmBank as policyholder, therefore the claim could be dismissed under Order 14A as a question of law decided without full trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Sessions Court decision dated 14.07.2023 affirmed
  • Costs of the appeal of MYR 5,000 awarded to respondent payable subject to taxation (alokatur)