Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 96 road transport act 1987

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2024

1. ) FRANCES JOYCELYN NATHAN 2. ) JAYAPRAGASH AMBLAVANAR 3. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD Siva Subramaniam A/l M. Shanmugam (Menyaman Sebagai Seorang Pemilik Tunggal Yang Beramal Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya Subramaniam &

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2112-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2112-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that, on the facts and context, the impugned email was not defamatory in the pleaded libellous sense and, alternatively, that its core assertion (that the lawyer had a tendency to assess claims without insurer-appointed solicitors present) was substantially true and/or protected by qualified privilege. The High Court judgment awarding damages was set aside and the plaintiff's claim dismissed; the plaintiff's separate appeal on quantum failed for lack of proof.
26 Jul 2024

1. ) SHANMUGAM A/L KARUPPIAH 2. ) LEKSHMY A/P LETCHUMANAN 1. ) TOKIO MARINE INSURANS (MALAYSIA) BHD 2. ) CITIBANK BERHAD

Citation

BL-12A-5-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12A-5-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the issue whether Tokio Marine was the insurer for vehicle BJL 7247 had already been decided on the merits in an earlier Sessions Court decision (Lampiran 15) which found no certificate of insurance was delivered and that the cover note was cancelled, therefore res judicata applied and the appellant's garnishee/show cause application (Lampiran 24) failed; the appeal is dismissed.
14 May 2024

ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 1. ) NOR ILY KAREENA BINTI ROSMAN 2. ) MOHD SOLEHIN BIN MOHD RAZALI 3. ) TAJULARUS BIN BAHARI

Citation

DA-A54-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A54-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Exhibit VJR-1 expressed the policy period by dates only and did not state a commencement time; following binding precedent the court held that absence of an express start time means the policy covered the accident on 1/3/2022 at about 12:00pm, so the applicant's declarations that the policy was unenforceable and that the applicant was not liable failed; Kandungan 1 was dismissed.
9 May 2024

WAN KAM SANG SEBAGAI BAPA YANG SAH DAN PENANGGUNGAN KEPADA WAN MEE FONG, SIMATI, UNTUK DIRI SENDIRI, DAN BAGI PIHAK PENANGGUNGAN-PENANGGUNGAN YANG LAIN KOO TIEN WEE

Citation

JA-A53KJ-887-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-887-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court dismissed the insurer's application to intervene because allowing the insurer to dispute coverage within the tort proceedings would defeat the statutory scheme under section 96(1)-(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987; the insurer must seek a declaratory judgment under s96(3) in a separate forum and cannot use procedural joinder powers to circumvent the statute.
25 Mar 2024

1. ) Abdul Hair Bin Ali Hossain 2. ) Wan Ismail Bin Wan Kadir 1. ) ZURICH GENERAL TAKAFUL MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) Nor Ashikin Binti Abd Rahman

Citation

W-02(NCC)(A)-560-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(A)-560-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that statutory third-party protection under the RTA prevents the insurer from obtaining a declaration under s.96 to void the policy after the risk materialised where the insurer failed to show it had made inquiries or safeguarded its interests on renewal; therefore the insurer cannot rely on the vehicle being a different chassis to avoid liability to innocent third-party victims and the High Court's declaration was set aside.
15 Feb 2024

KESWAN A/L R. RAJANTHARAN 1. ) MURUGIAH A/L SANGAPILLAY 2. ) RAJESWARY A/P SANGAPILLAY PENCELAH MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BHD

Citation

WA-A53KJ-130-04/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A53KJ-130-04/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application to intervene was dismissed because it was filed at the last moment without reasonable explanation despite the insurer having knowledge and involvement since 2020; no cogent evidence beyond suspicion of fraud was produced to justify late joinder; the application was an afterthought and would prejudice the plaintiff and amount to abuse of process, therefore the court exercised its discretion to refuse intervention and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
6 Feb 2024

AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD 1. ) NUR HALLIMATUNAIMAH BINTI MAT YUSOFF 2. ) AZEHAN BIN AMRAN 3. ) SITI NOR AZILAN BINTI MAT HASSAN

Citation

DA-24NCvC-214-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-24NCvC-214-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the insurer failed to exercise due diligence before issuing/renewing the policy, the insurer's own confirmation and JPJ records established that cover existed at the material time, and the insurer failed to give the statutory notice under s96(3) and unreasonably delayed filing the declaratory application (approximately 11 months), making the application an abuse of process; accordingly no declaratory relief was granted.
21 Dec 2023

YUGANES NAIDU A/L SANNASEE NAIDU 1. ) DORAI RAJOO A/L DORAISAMY 2. ) GEETHA A/P SANNASI PENCELAH ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (M) BERHAD

Citation

BE-A73KJ-42-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BE-A73KJ-42-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application to intervene was dismissed because the applicant filed it inordinately late after the plaintiff had given evidence, failed to obtain permission and comply with case management directions for a late additional affidavit, and failed to demonstrate a bona fide, timely prima facie case of fraud; although the insurer has legal and financial interest under Order 15 Rule 6 KKM 2012 and Section 96 RTA 1987, those factors did not justify intervention given delay, non-compliance and lack of credible supporting evidence.
14 Dec 2022

LONPAC INSURANCE BERHAD 1. ) NURUL HASMIDA BINTI MOHMED HANAPI 2. ) MOHMED HANAPI BIN JUSOH 3. ) ROHAYU BINTI JAFFAR

Citation

DA-24NCvC-196-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-24NCvC-196-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that although the defendants failed to comply with the seven‑day statutory notice period, the defendants' conduct (their solicitors having honestly served the wrong insurer and later serving the correct insurer after discovery) amounted to special/exceptional circumstances; conversely the plaintiff insurer had not complied with the procedural prerequisites of s96(3) (notice within seven days stating grounds) and delayed bringing the declaratory application, and permitting the declaration would cause substantial prejudice to the claimants; accordingly the plaintiff's application…
1 Dec 2022

MOHD IZZUDDIN SYUKRI BIN ISHAK PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-168-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-168-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the High Court judge erred in dismissing OS 466 and that the consequent writ proceedings are a nullity, the High Court must refrain from delivering judgment in the nullified writ action and should make no order as to costs.