VASANTHA A/P MANIAM (MENDAKWA SEBAGAI BALU MENURUT HUKUM DAN ORANG TANGGUNGAN KEPADA MOHAN A/L VALLUVAN, SI MATI) 1. ) 1. RAMESH A/L PONNUSAMY 2. ) 2. GARDENIA SALES & DISTRIBUTION SDN. BHD.

VASANTHA A/P MANIAM (MENDAKWA SEBAGAI BALU MENURUT HUKUM DAN ORANG TANGGUNGAN KEPADA MOHAN A/L VALLUVAN, SI MATI) 1. ) 1. RAMESH A/L PONNUSAMY 2. ) 2. GARDENIA SALES & DISTRIBUTION SDN. BHD.

The application to intervene was dismissed because intervention under O15 r 6 must be sought before judgment; the applicant filed long after the consent judgment and after a separate struck-out action, offered no reasonable excuse for delay, failed to serve mandatory s 96(2) RTA notice or prove defendants knew of her status, and the application would offend s 7(5) CLA, be res judicata and an abuse of process; accordingly Enclosure 12 was dismissed with costs.

Citation
JA-A53KJ-801-12/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Vasantha a/p Maniam; 1st Defendant: Ramesh a/l Ponnusamy; 2nd Defendant: Gardenia Sales & Distribution Sdn. Bhd.; Applicant: Ramu a/p Narayanan
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Case Number
JA-A53KJ-801-12/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Dependency Claim Under S 7 Civil Law Act 1956 (tort/personal Injury Fatality) / Application to Intervene (enclosure 12) Under O15 R 6 and O92 R 4 Dismissed; Reasons Delivered 3 June 2021
Outcome
Enclosure 12 dismissed
Legal Topics
Dependency Claim, Intervention, Consent Judgment, Res Judicata, S 96(2) Road Transport Act Notice, S 7(5) Civil Law Act 1956, Natural Justice, Abuse of Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Civil Procedure Insurance Law Road Traffic Law Dependency Claim Intervention Consent Judgment Res Judicata +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vasantha a/p Maniam

Plaintiff

Ramesh a/l Ponnusamy

1st Defendant

Gardenia Sales & Distribution Sdn. Bhd.

2nd Defendant

Ramu a/p Narayanan

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Dependency Claim Under S 7 Civil Law Act 1956 (tort/personal Injury Fatality) / Application to Intervene (enclosure 12) Under O15 R 6 and O92 R 4 Dismissed; Reasons Delivered 3 June 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an applicant may intervene after a consent judgment has been entered
  2. 2 Whether s 7(5) Civil Law Act 1956 permits more than one dependency action arising from the same death
  3. 3 Whether absence of service of notice under s 96(2) Road Transport Act absolves insurer/defendant from liability

Ratio Decidendi

The application to intervene was dismissed because intervention under O15 r 6 must be sought before judgment; the applicant filed long after the consent judgment and after a separate struck-out action, offered no reasonable excuse for delay, failed to serve mandatory s 96(2) RTA notice or prove defendants knew of her status, and the application would offend s 7(5) CLA, be res judicata and an abuse of process; accordingly Enclosure 12 was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 12 dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 12 dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs of RM2000.00