CIP GROUP SDN BHD v 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

Case Significance

Illustrates the test for joining a proposed intervener under Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 — bringing all necessary and proper parties before the court so the whole controversy is resolved in one proceeding — applied to foreign corporate interveners in a shipping and trade dispute.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Hazizah binti Kassim JC, concerns applications by two proposed interveners — Korea Marine Transport Co Ltd and Heung A Line Co Ltd, both companies registered in Korea — to intervene in a civil suit brought by CIP Group Sdn Bhd, a company engaged in general trading, import and export, against a foreign trading company and several container-line and shipping defendants. The applications to intervene were made under Aturan 15 kaedah 6, Aturan 15 kaedah 8 dan Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 15 rule 6, Order 15 rule 8 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012). The question for the Court was whether the two Korean companies had a sufficient interest in the proceedings to be joined as parties so that all matters in dispute could be effectually and completely determined.

The Court examined the relationship between the parties and the interests said to be affected. It was satisfied that the proposed interveners had shown that their legal interests were affected by the proceedings and that they had a right to be heard, and that by granting the applications the issues between the parties could be fully and effectively resolved within the one proceeding. In reaching that conclusion the Court applied the principle in Tajjul Ariffin bin Mustafa v Heng Cheng Hong, that the overriding consideration is that all necessary and proper parties — but no others — should be before the court at the same time to enable the effectual and complete determination of all the questions and issues that arise for decision.

The Court accordingly allowed the two applications to intervene (Enclosures 27 and 40), with costs in the cause. Dissatisfied with the decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the test for joining a proposed intervener under Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 — the joinder of all necessary and proper parties so that the whole controversy may be resolved in a single proceeding — applied to foreign corporate interveners whose legal interests were engaged by a shipping and trade dispute.