Cip Group Sdn Bhd v Renqui Dongtai Import & Export Trade Co Ltd (BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025)

RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT … DEFENDANTS

SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. [COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 202001026746 (1383066-K)]

KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. [COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 500612-P]

HEUNGA-A (M) SDN. BHD. [COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 199501012998 (342200-X)] AND 25/09/2025 16:25:07

KOREA MARINE TRANSPORT CO. LTD … INTERVENERS (KOREAN COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 110111-0406531)]

HEUNG A LINE CO. LTD (KOREAN COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 110111-7291597)] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosures 27 and 40) A.

Enclosures 40 and 27 are applications to intervene filed by the proposed intervenor, Korea Marine Transport Co. Ltd, and Heung A Line Co., Ltd, both of which are companies registered in Korea. The application is made pursuant to Order 15 Rule 6, Order 15 Rule 8, and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court (RoC) 2012.

On 28 July 2025, this Court allowed the intervener’s application to intervene. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this decision and filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. B.

The plaintiff is a company engaged in general trading, import, export and distribution of goods, including carpets and having its business address in PT24335, PT 24336 and PT 24380 Kawasan Perindustrian Nilai Utama Enterprise Park, Nilai, 71800 Negeri Sembilan.

The first defendant is a company incorporated in China and engaged in the trade of artificial grass carpets.

The second, third and fourth defendants are a company incorporated in Malaysia and is the charge liner withholding the retainer cargo containing goods.

The plaintiff and the first defendant had an existing commercial and contractual relationship. On 10.3.2025, they entered into a Payment Terms Agreement for the purchase of artificial grass carpets. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant had breached their obligations under the contract.

There are five Bills of Lading under the second defendant, two Bills of Lading under the third defendant, and two Bills of Lading under the fourth defendant. Based on the Bills of Lading, 16 containers are currently detained at Port Klang by the second, third and fourth defendant.

The plaintiff’s cause of action against the second, third, and fourth defendants is for tort of conversion and/or negligence.

According to the plaintiff, the first defendant failed and refused to release the cargo containing the goods to the plaintiff despite the required payment being settled by the plaintiff and acknowledged by the first defendant.

On 19 March 2025, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte prohibitory injunction preventing the defendants, including their shareholders, directors, officers, employees, and/or agents, from interfering with and/or obstructing the plaintiff from using and/or enjoying the cargo container containing the goods. This includes, but is not limited to, prohibiting the change of the List of Bills of Lading to the defendant and/or third parties, as well as preventing the return of the cargo container containing the goods to the defendant in China and/or third parties until the full disposal of this case.

Besides that, the prohibitory injunction also prevents the Defendants, whether by themselves or through their staff, employees, and/or agents, from taking any further steps that may obstruct the Plaintiff's ability to enjoy benefits from the contractual agreement and/or continue business operations relating to the supply of the cargo container of goods until further order from this Court.

There are two proposed interveners in this Suit, which are Korea Marine Transport Co. Ltd (KMTCL) and Heung A Line Co Ltd.

KMTCL is a Korean company applying as an intervener in this suit to defend its interest. KMTCL is the carrier carrying the cargo in the containers no. BMOU6365991, FCIU7232100 dan BMOU6925592 (“Cargo”), from the Port of Tianjin, China to Port of Port Klang North, Malaysia. Two draft Bills of Lading No. KMTCXGG2753252A and KMTCXGG2753252B (“Draft Bills of Lading”) [145-148] were drafted by KMTCL to the shipper, Renqiu Dongtai Import & Export Trade Co Ltd (“Renqiu”) in China.

The third defendant, KMTC Line (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd is KMTCL’s agent in Malaysia to handle the shipments carried by KMTCL to and from Malaysia. At all material times, the relationship of KMTCL and the Third Defendant is governed by the Agency Agreement dated 1 January 2020 (“Agency Agreement”) [149-157].

Heung A Line Co Ltd (HALCL), a Korean Company, is filing Enclosure 40 to seek leave to intervene in this present Suit. HALCL is the carrier that carried the cargo contained in containers numbered SKHU9973596, SKHU6389510 and HALU5685114 (“the Cargo”). HALCL was the party in possession of the Cargo at the time when the (Ex Parte) Injunction Application dated 15 March 2025 was applied for and the (Ex Parte) Injunction Order for Enclosure 3 dated 19 March 2025 ("(Ex Parte) Injunction Order") was executed against the Cargo.

HALCL also prepared the draft Bills of Lading No. HASLC02241200927 and HASLC02241200929 (“Draft Bills of Lading”), which the Plaintiff cited as evidence of its claimed ownership of the Cargo. According to HALCL, the fourth defendant named in this action is merely an agent or representative of HALCL, the principal of the Fourth Defendant, under an Agency Agreement dated 20 December 2019 ("Agency Agreement").

The plaintiff objects to both the intervening application and also requests an order to strike out the affidavits filed in support of the applications. C.

Order 15 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court (RoC) 2012 states the following – Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(ii) provides as follows: A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter. (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application- (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely-

Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(ii) of the RoC 2012 gives the Court the discretion to add a third person into a suit if there exists a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter.

The law regarding an application to intervene is addressed in the case of Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v. Superace (M) Sdn Bhd [1989] 2 CLJ Rep 575, where the Court held that – It is therefore clear that a person who wants to intervene must show that he has some interest which is directly related to the subject matter of the action. A mere commercial interest in the outcome is not enough. He will be allowed to intervene if his rights or liabilities in respect of the subject matter of the action will be directly affected by any order of the Court in the action. To prevent injustice being done the Court should allow a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment an opportunity of being heard. D.

The relevant issue to be decided is whether the proposed interveners have a sufficient interest in these proceedings, specifically whether the proposed interveners would directly affect their rights. E.

The proposed intervenor under Enclosure 27, Korea Marine Transport Co. Ltd sought to claim the following relief – a) That leave be granted to the Proposed Intervener, HEUNG A LINE CO., LTD. (KOREAN COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 110111-7291597) to intervene in this action and be named as an Intervener to this action; b) That the Plaintiff be ordered to amend the Writ of Summons dated 15 March 2025 (Enclosure 1) (“Writ”) and Statement of Claim dated 15 March 2025 (Enclosure 2) (“Statement of Claim”) by adding the Proposed Intervener as the Intervener within 7 days of service of this order; c) That the Proposed Intervener be at liberty to apply for such relief and/or remedy and/or take steps necessary to defend its interests; d) That costs of this application be made costs in the cause; and; e) Such further and/or other reliefs that this Honourable Court deems fit, just and proper to give.

23.

The application by HALCL is founded on the ground that the fourth defendant, Heung-A (M) Sdn Bhd (“Heung-A Sdn Bhd”), is HALCL’s local shipping agent in Malaysia. The agency relationship is governed by a written Agency Agreement dated 20 December 2019.

As to Enclosure 27, the application by KMTCL as the carrier is based on its contractual carrier responsibility for the carriage of the Cargo from Tianjin, China, to Northport Port Klang, Malaysia. The third defendant is KMTCL’s local shipping agent in Malaysia which governed by a written Agency Agreement dated 1 January 2020.

On 19.3.2025, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction against the third and fourth defendant (together with the first and second defendants), including to restrain the fourth defendant from dealing with or interfering with the Cargo, and in the alternative, a mandatory order compelling the release of the Cargo to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the cargo.

KMTCL and HALCL stated that while the third and fourth defendants were still awaiting instructions from KMTC and HALCL, respectively, the plaintiff had enforced the ex parte injunction on March 27, 2025, and successfully took possession of the cargo.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the case of RHB Bank Bhd v Sineo Enterprise Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) (Chin Kon Meng, intervener) [2017] MLJU 860, which held that – [7] It is trite that ‘for a third party to intervene and to be joined as party in an action, the proposed intervener must demonstrate that he or she has some interest which is directly related to or connected with the subject ma er of the action.’ Further, ‘if a person wishes to be joined because of a financial interest, and not legal interest, in the outcome of the case, the court is unlikely to allow the third party to intervene’ (see Malaysian Civil Procedure 2015, vol. 1, p. 156). [8] Based on the above legal propositions, the question for this Court to ask is - Will the proposed intervener’s rights against the liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the foreclosure proceeding? (see Pegang Mining Co. Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52, p. 56).

Based on the affidavit supporting Enclosures 27 and 40, the primary reason for requesting leave in this application is – a) The Cargo must not be released without the presentation of the original Bills of Lading, in accordance with well-established international shipping law and Malaysian shipping practice. b) No original Bill of Lading had ever been issued in this case, and as a result, none were submitted to prove the release of the Cargo.

The proposed intervenors averred that their legal interest would be affected by the court order, and they rely on the case of Tajjul Ariffin Bin Mustafa v Heng Cheng Hong [1993] 2 MLJ 143 (SC) as follows – The principle of overriding importance 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 and adjudication to be made by the court of all questions and issues between the parties which arise for decision. (See O 15 rr 4 and 6 of the RHC.)

Both HALCL and KMTCKL stated that their interest and ownership in the disputed Cargo would be directly affected by the outcome of the case. Its interest in this matter arises from its duties and obligations as the carrier of the cargo, which has been placed in the care and custody of the carrier by the Shipper. Since the plaintiff has gained possession of the Cargo, HALCL and KMTCL face a claim from the Shipper because HALCL and KMTCL are unable to deliver the Cargo to their order and/or redeliver it to the Shipper.

The learned counsel for the proposed interveners refers to Section 183 of the Contracts Act 1950, which provides that an agent is not personally bound by contracts made on behalf of his principal if the principal is disclosed. Section 183 states as follows – In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them.

The Court of Appeal in the case of Sri Sutera Sdn Bhd v Mohamed Bin Abid and Another Appeals [2004] 2 MLJ 321 decided that – [12] Now, on the appeal by the second defendant learned counsel submitted that by virtue of the provisions of s 183 of the Contracts Act 1950, the second defendant being the agent of the first defendant, could not be personally liable on contract entered into by him on behalf of the first defendant. He cited a host of authorities, including Plantation Agencies Sdn Bhd v Haji Ariffin bin Haji Ismail [1978] 1 MLJ 219 (FC) and Medicon Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Cosa Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 MLJ 416 (SC) in support thereof.

This Court also considers the purpose of preventing multiple proceedings by allowing this intervening application under Enclosures 27 and 40. After reviewing the relationship between the parties, this Court believes that KMTCL and HALCL have shown that their legal interests are affected by this proceeding and that they have a right to be heard. By granting this application, the issues between the parties can be fully and effectively resolved through this proceeding.

In the case of Tajjul Ariffin bin Mustafa v Heng Cheng Hong [1993] 2 MLH 143, it was held that – The principle of overriding importance 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 and adjudication to be made by the court of all questions and issues between the parties which arise for decision. F.

Based on the reasons above, this Court allowed Enclosures 27 and 40 with costs in the cause. Dated 25th September 2025. Signed HAZIZAH KASSIM Judicial Commissioner High Court of Civil (NCvC10) Shah Alam, Selangor

For the Plaintiff : Bhavanash Sharma, Chetna Brijmohan Messrs Bhavanash Sharma (Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur)

For the 1st Defendant : -

For the 2nd Defendant : Messrs Ricky Tan & Co (Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala

For the 3rd and 4th Defendant and the Proposed Intervener : Oon Thian Seng, Lionel Navin Noel, Tan Hui Ling & Ng You Xian Messrs T S Oon & Partners (Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala