Rishindran A/l Paramanathan (Menyaman Sebagai Pentadbir Estet Shamini A/p Manokaran, Si Mati) v 1. ) Kajang Plaza Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr Renu Gopinath 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) Dr Aishah binti Mohd Hafiz 5. ) Dr Norsyazwan bin Mohd Yusof 6. ) Dr Shahril bin Abu Bakar 7. ) Dr Missdalia binti Mat Kiah 8. ) Dr Darlina binti Mohd Dhari 9. ) Dr Chong Poi Leng 10. ) Dr Sadanah Aqashiah binti Mazlan 11. ) Dr Gillian Marie Caunter 12. ) Dr Ahmad Al-Hafeez bin Ahmad Zaidi PENCELAH Nithraj A/...

Case Significance

Illustrates joinder of a joint administrator as a co-plaintiff in estate litigation and the court’s management of separate but cooperating representation on the same side.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application to intervene and be added as a co-plaintiff in a medical negligence action brought on behalf of a deceased patient’s estate. The action, arising out of the death of a patient, had been commenced by the administrator of the estate against a private medical centre, Kajang Plaza Medical Centre Sdn Bhd, the Government of Malaysia and a number of treating doctors. The proposed intervener, the deceased’s brother, was the joint administrator of the same estate together with the existing plaintiff, who was the deceased’s widower. He applied under Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 for leave to intervene and to be joined as the second plaintiff, and asked to be represented by solicitors of his own choice. The existing plaintiff objected, raising the concern that separate representation of two administrators on the same side might generate inconsistent or conflicting positions and complicate the joint conduct of the litigation. The Court allowed the application. It reasoned that, as a joint administrator, the proposed intervener was a rightful party who shared the common questions in the action and was properly to be added as a co-plaintiff, making no order as to costs. On the question of representation, the Court declined to restrict the intervener’s choice of solicitors, since any party may be represented by solicitors of its choosing, but observed that the two legal teams should collaborate as a united team rather than become entangled in the clients’ personal conflicts, with liberty to apply if a genuine conflict later affected the justice of the case. The Court saw no realistic prospect of the intervener, through his own solicitors, taking a stand against the defendants inconsistent with the existing plaintiff’s so as to warrant his exclusion, and observed that protracted objection between the two administrators would benefit nobody, not even the defendants. The existing plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment is a practical illustration of joinder of a co-administrator and the management of shared representation in estate litigation.