M
Muhammad Helmy Husnizam Syah bin Baharzam Shah
Person 1 case
Muhammad Helmy Husnizam Syah bin Baharzam Shah appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
pa-24ncvc-921-07-2025
ZURICH GENERAL INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD v 1. ) NG KOK SOON 2. ) MUHAMMAD HELMY HUSNIZAM SYAH BIN BAHARZAM SHAH 3. ) SMART CARRIER CENTRE SDN BHD
MYHC 2 December 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Muhammad Helmy Husnizam Syah bin Baharzam Shah
Muhammad Helmy Husnizam Syah bin Baharzam Shah appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning December 2025 to December 2025. Muhammad Helmy Husnizam Syah bin Baharzam Shah appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Muhammad Helmy Husnizam Syah bin Baharzam Shah?
Muhammad Helmy Husnizam Syah bin Baharzam Shah appears in 1 published judgment from December 2025 to December 2025. Most commonly as respondent (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1. Claims arising from motor-vehicle accidents commonly involve injured parties seeking compensation under insurance policies maintained by the owners of the vehicles or tortfeasors. The present matter is no exception. What distinguishes this case, however, is that the insurer itself has initiated proceedings, seeking a declaration that the First Defendant’s personal-injury claim in the Sessions Court falls outside the scope of the relevant third-party insurance policy. 2. Accordingly, it falls to this Court to interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Road Transport Act 1987 to the factual circumstances before it. 1 The Overriding Issue 3. The resolution of this Originating Summons turns on a deceptively simple question: was the First Defendant a “passenger” within the meaning of the Road Transport Act 1987? While seemingly straightforward, the question requires careful analysis. 4. At its core, the issue concerns the proper construction of the statutory framework governing compulsory third-party insurance, particularly the scope of coverage under the Road Transport Act 1987, and whether, the exclusion provision and/or the further exception thereto applies to the present case. 1