MOHD. NAZRUL BIN MOHD. BASRI PENCELAH FARAHZATULL BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN

Case Significance

Illustrates the setting aside of an ex parte order under the Mental Health Act 2001 for want of full and frank disclosure of material facts, including the existence of other heirs, and the joining of an interested party to protect the estate of a person alleged to lack capacity.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application by a proposed intervener to be joined as a party to an originating summons and to set aside an earlier court order made under the Akta Kesihatan Mental 2001 (Mental Health Act 2001). The originating summons had been brought in respect of an elderly landowner said to be of unsound mind, invoking seksyen 52 dan seksyen 53–70 Akta Kesihatan Mental 2001 (sections 52 and 53–70 of the Mental Health Act 2001), which govern applications for an inquiry into, and management of, the estate of a person alleged to be mentally disordered, together with seksyen 420 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 (section 420 of the National Land Code 1965) relating to dealings in the land. The applicant had obtained an order dated 21 August 2024. The proposed intervener applied under Aturan 15 kaedah 6(2)(b) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012) to intervene, and under Aturan 42 kaedah 13 (Order 42 rule 13) and seksyen 75 of the same Act to set the order aside.

The intervener's interest arose from a wish to purchase a parcel of land belonging to the person alleged to be of unsound mind. Her central complaint was that the applicant had failed to make full disclosure of the ongoing dispute between the parties — in particular that the landowner had a second lawful wife and a child of that marriage who were heirs — and had obtained the order of 21 August 2024 at an ex parte hearing on the basis of an incomplete narrative.

The Court accepted the intervener's contention that it had been misled in granting the ex parte order because of the applicant's failure to make complete disclosure. It allowed the intervention (paragraph (3) of the application), set aside the order of 21 August 2024, and fixed the originating summons to be heard afresh on a new date, awarding costs of RM5,000 subject to allocatur. Because the order was to be set aside on the disclosure ground and the summons re-tried, the Court declined to make findings on the intervener's further arguments about procedural irregularity under section 52 and the admission of two medical reports. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the court's readiness to set aside an ex parte order under the Mental Health Act 2001 where the applicant failed to disclose material facts, including the existence of other heirs, and to admit an interested party to protect the estate of a person alleged to lack capacity.