Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 15 rule 6

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 15 (r6/r8) and held that KMTCL and HALCL demonstrated a sufficient legal interest (as carriers/through agency relationships) and that their rights would be directly affected by the injunction and plaintiff's possession of the cargo; permitting intervention prevents multiplicity of proceedings and ensures complete adjudication, therefore leave to intervene was granted with costs in the cause.
17 Jul 2025

PERINTIS GEMILANG SDN. BHD. 1. ) CHEE BEE GAIK 2. ) CHEE SOON AUN 3. ) LIM KIM CHEW 4. ) SARINA BT JUSOH

Citation

WA-22NCvC-765-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-765-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 15 Rule 6 to grant leave to join the two partners because they were confirmed partners at the relevant time, s.11 Partnership Act 1961 exposes partners to joint liability for firm obligations, there was no undue delay or prejudice, and the issues of liability are triable and appropriate to resolve with the added parties.
7 May 2025

EUM Realty Sdn Bhd Inter Formula (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-77-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-77-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the determination of whether the appellant is vicariously liable for the second defendant involves mixed questions of fact and law that require full trial and evaluation of multiple indicia; the Sessions Court did not err in refusing to try the issue separately under Order 33 r.2 and therefore orders to remove the appellant or strike out the claim were unwarranted.
17 Apr 2025

GELANG EMAS SDN BHD 1. ) MOHD RASHIDI BIN ABD RASHID 2. ) PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG TIDAK DIKETAHUI PENCELAH Goh Gek Eng (Sebagai Pencelah Yang Dicadangkan)

Citation

JA-24NCvC-629-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-629-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the Pegang Mining test and Order 15 Rule 6, the court found the proposed intervener demonstrated an interest that would be directly affected by orders in the main action and therefore met requirements to intervene; intervention was granted with costs in the cause and the main proceeding was to continue for determination of competing interests.
10 Feb 2025

Elegant Builders Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Ahmad Zaki Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Ahmad Zaki Resources Berhad

Citation

WA-22C-62-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-62-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court applied the discretionary principles under Order 15 r6 and Order 20 r5 of the Rules of Court 2012, assessing necessity, prejudice and delay, and concluded that amendment of the Writ and Statement of Claim was permissible in the circumstances.
15 May 2024

1. ) DATIN LAI LEONG PENG 2. ) KAITO GIN SDN BHD 3. ) SIERRA CHARM SDN BHD 1. ) DATO JAVERN LIM CHONG HEE 2. ) EDWARD OOI TEE HEE 3. ) LEU KOK WAI 4. ) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD 5. ) SCS GLOBAL ADVISORY (M) SDN BHD PENCELAH KAITO GIN HOLDINGS

Citation

WA-22NCvC-30-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-30-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to intervene and be added as a co-plaintiff was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to demonstrate a legal interest in the matters in dispute as required by Order 15 rule 6(3), was controlled by the existing plaintiff and could have been joined earlier, and because a prior decision to refuse consolidation in Suit No.48 indicated the disputes were not sufficiently connected to justify adding the intervener.
27 Dec 2021

So Chien Hao [C.H. SO & ASSOC. (KUALA LUMPUR)] Jenny Saw Lye Hong, Lucas Chong Wan Jien [CHOY & ASSOCIATES (PENANG)] PENCELAH Esther Geethar Jayaraja, Lee Heng Siang [CHEW DASS, JAYARAJA]

Citation

PA-24NCVC-1138-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCVC-1138-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to intervene was dismissed because the proposed intervener's personal right to seek taxation of the invoices was extinguished by operation of section 128(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (more than one year had elapsed), and the court has no power to extend that statutory limit; permitting intervention would therefore be wrong and an abuse of process.
23 Dec 2021

Walter Lo (Identity Card No.: 650901109009) San Wai Lik (Identity Card No.: 670409105717)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-170-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-170-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to intervene was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to demonstrate a direct legal interest that would be affected by any order in the action as required by the test in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam; the Plaintiff's claim is a personal claim against the Defendant for RM2,500,000 and will not legally affect the company, and the intervener's asserted impacts were unsubstantiated and would only cause delay and unnecessary costs.
2 Mar 2020

Red Sena Berhad (Dalam Likuidasi) PENCELAH Raintree F&B Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28PW-626-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-626-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Staghorn principle applies: the Court is functus officio in relation to the 14.10.2019 Order; the proposed intervenor failed to establish a breach of natural justice or defective service sufficient to render the Order a nullity; thus leave to intervene to set aside or amend that concluded Order was not permissible and the proper remedy is a fresh action; the leave application is dismissed.