Ng Kok Mee v Iqbal Zaim Bin Baharuddin (WA-12ANCvC-90-07/2025)

INTAN SHAFINAZ BINTI MOHD YUSUF ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Kuala Lumpur Dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Guaman No: WA-B53KJ-12-03/2023

Iqbal Zaim Bin Baharuddin

Intan Shafinaz Binti Mohd Yusuf ... Plaintif-Plaintif Dan Ng Kok Mee ... Defendan]

Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menolak permohonan memasukkan pihak ketiga sebagai pihak di dalam prosiding.

Penelitian kepada permohonan pihak ketiga itu menunjukkan hospital yang melakukan pembedahan dan rawatan terhadap Plaintif dicadangkan untuk dijadikan pihak ketiga.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menolak permohonan tersebut disebabkan permohonan pihak ketiga telah dibuat lewat setelah perbicaraan utama kes ini telah selesai dan tarikh keputusan telah ditetapkan.

Mahkamah ini mendapati asas utama kepada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menolak permohonan pihak ketiga ini adalah kelewatan Defendan mengemukakan permohonan pihak ketiga tersebut.

Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa Plaintif tidak boleh dipaksa untuk menamakan mana-mana orang sebagai Defendan. Ia adalah pertimbangan Plaintif semasa mengemukakan tuntutan. Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah boleh mempertimbangkan permohonan Defendan untuk menambah mana-mana pihak. Mahkamah Agung dalam kes Tajjul Arifin bin Mustafa v. Heng Chen Hong [1993] 2 MLJ 143 telah menggariskan pertimbangan seperti berikut: Secondly, insofar as the power of the court to add a defendant on the application of the defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff is concerned, the jurisdiction of the court is entirely discretionary and the only fetter which RHC O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) places upon the exercise of the discretion which it gives to the judge of first instance is that it shall be exercised when there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which in the opinion of the court it would be just and convenient to determine as between the person sought to be joined and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. Thirdly, the objects of para 2(b)(ii) as to joinder of parties are generally speaking the same as the objects of the rules governing third party proceedings, that is to say: (1) to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the court to determine disputes between all parties to them in one action; and (2) to prevent the same or substantially the same questions or issues being tried all over again with possibly different results. (See Supreme Court Practice (1991) para 15/6/7 at p 193.) Fourthly, the most scrupulous attention must be paid to the facts of previous cases cited to the court. This requirement is the anchor sheet of the doctrine of precedent according to which like cases must be decided alike. And so, the probability that a court will decide a particular case in the same way as would the court which decided one of the cases cited will become less and less as the differences between the facts of the two cases increase. We are thus reminded, of the oft quoted passage in the judgment of Lord Halsbury in Quinn v Leathem 15 which runs as follows: Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law but govern and are qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. It is in the light of these principles that the cases of Hee Awa 2 and Chan Yee 3 should be considered. In other words, the judgment in those cases should be read in the light of the facts of those cases and not as imposing any fetter on the exercise of the discretion given to a judge when considering an application by the defendant for joinder of a defendant, over the objections of the plaintiff, in any new case.

Tindakan kes ini permohonan mengeluar notis pihak ketiga dibuat selepas hampir dua tahun prosiding ditutup. Ia juga dibuat setelah Mahkamah menetapkan tarikh keputusan pada 28.03.2025.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah meneliti afidavit permohonan tersebut dan berpendapat tiada alasan yang dikemukakan bagi menjelaskan kelewatan permohonan tersebut. Mahkamah Sesyen menukilkan kes Kewangan Bersatu Bhd v Victory Ceramics Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors [2002] 5 MLJ 225. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen juga merujuk kes Dato' Abul Hasan bin Mohamed Rashid v Multi-Code Electronics Industries & Anor [2012] 5 MLJ 176.

Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa tindakan menjadikan pihak ketiga adalah tindakan yang bebas dan berasingan dengan tindakan di antara Plaintif dan Defendan. Ia membawa maksud tindakan terhadap pihak ketiga itu boleh berdiri dengan sendiri. Ini dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Agung dalam kes Mat Abu bin Man v. Medical Superintendent General Hospital, Taiping Perak & Ors [1989] 1 MLJ 226, seperti berikut: Third-party proceedings for contribution should be regarded as independent of and separate from proceedings by a plaintiff against a defendant. When a defendant is made liable to the plaintiff, he then has his right open against a third party to establish that he possesses a right to contribution or indemnity from the third party. Time should begin to run from the date the defendant is held liable. la dijelaskan dengan menarik oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Dato' Abul Hasan (supra) di perenggan 15 seperti berikut: [15] We have also considered the argument that the second defendant has the right to bring a separate action against his fellow directors later. We noted that prior to the filing of the third party notices, the second defendant had not made any demand against the proposed third parties the six directors of the first plaintiff. And such lackadaisical attitude points to a case of an afterthought on the part of the second defendant. It must be emphasised that the second defendant is not barred under limitation or jurisdiction for that matter from bringing a separate action against the proposed third parties. And it must also be emphasised that the second defendant is not prevented from filing a fresh action against the proposed third parties on the allegations as alluded to by the second defendant in his third party notices.

Penelitian kepada Alasan Penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di perenggan 14 menunjukkan bahawa kausa tindakan yang melibatkan Plaintif dan Defendan adalah berkenaan kecuaian pemanduan Defendan sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan jalanraya. Sebaliknya, kausa tindakan di dalam prosiding pihak ketiga adalah berkaitan dengan kecuaian perubatan yang melibatkan SJP Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd. la adalah kausa tindakan yang berbeza. Defendan mempunyai kebebasan untuk memfailkan tindakan berasingan terhadap pihak ketiga tersebut.

Pada hemat Mahkamah, dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen adalah wajar. Ia adalah pendekatan yang tidak boleh ditunjukkan sebagai salah arah undang-undang yang memerlukan campurtangan Mahkamah ini. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menggunakan budi bicara menurut prinsip undang-undang.

Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan tidak boleh dengan sewenang-wenangnya menganggu penggunaan budi bicara oleh Hakim bicara. Ini dinyatakan oleh Majlis Privi dalam kes Ratnam v. Cumarasamy & Anor [1965] 1 MLJ 228 di mana Lord Guest menyatakan: The principles upon which a court will act in reviewing the discretion exercised by a lower court are well settled. There is a presumption that the judge has rightly exercised his discretion (Charles Osenton & Co v Johnston [1942] AC 130 per Lord Wright at 148). The court will not interfere unless it is clearly satisfied that the discretion has been exercised on a wrong principle and should have been exercised in a contrary way or that there has been a miscarriage of justice (Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473. Upon questions of procedure the Board is slow to interfere with the discretion exercised by a local court (Mayor of Montreal v Brown and Another (1876) 2 App Cas 168.

Penelitian kepada kes Charles @ Senton and Company v. Johnson [1942] AC 130, penelitian Lord Wright adalah menarik untuk difahami bahawa anggapan Hakim adalah betul semasa menggunakan budi bicara seperti berikut: No doubt that court starts with the presumption that the judge has rightly exercised his discretion. It must be satisfied that the exercise was wrong - "clearly satisfied" is the phrase used; but if the court is said to be satisfied, it must mean that it is "clearly" satisfied. "Clearly" strictly adds nothing, though it is useful to emphasize the strength of the presumption in favour of the judge's order being right. The appellate court must not reverse the judge's decision on a mere "measuring cast" or on a bare balance. The mere idea of discretion involves room for choice and for differences of opinion.

Di dalam kes Evans v. Bartlam [1937] AC 473, Lord Atkin menyatakan dengan menarik berkenaan hak budi bicara pendaftar seperti berikut: As to the limits of the discretion, if any, it may be necessary to say a word or two later. I only stay to mention a contention of the respondent that the Master having exercised his discretion the judge in Chambers should not reverse him unless it was made evident that the Master has exercised his discretion on wrong principles. I wish to state my conviction that where there is a discretionary jurisdiction given to the Court or a judge the judge in Chambers is in no way fettered by the previous exercise of the Master's discretion. His own discretion is intended by the rules to determine the parties' rights: and he is entitled to exercise it as though the matter came before him for the first time. He will, of course, give the weight it deserves to the previous decision of the Master: but he is in no way bound by it. This in my experience has always been the practice in Chambers, and I am glad to find it confirmed by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Cooper v. Cooper (1), with which I entirely agree.

Mahkamah di dalam kes Mayor of Montreal v. Brown & Another [1876] telah menjelaskan keterbatasan Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam menganggu budi bicara yang berkenaan dengan prosidur seperti Sir H. Keating menyatakan seperti berikut: Having regard to these considerations, and to the observations of Lord Westbury in the case before this Board of Boston v. Lelièvre (1), to the effect that upon questions of procedure their Lordships would be slow to reverse decisions by Canadian or other Colonial Courts unless they were fully satisfied that their proceedings were wrong, their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, so far as it admits the appeal, should be affirmed.

Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan tidak boleh sewenang-wenang mengakaskan budi bicara yang digunakan oleh Hakim bicara melainkan ianya sesuatu yang dapat ditunjukkan telah dilakukan tanpa menurut lunas undang-undang. Pada hemat Mahkamah, ini adalah bagi membolehkan Hakim bicara menggunakan budi bicara dengan sewajarnya. Pada masa yang sama, Hakim bicara hendaklah memastikan budi bicara itu dibuat berdasarkan peruntukkan undang-undang dan tidak dibuat sewenang-wenangnya. Ini akan menyebabkan ketetapan undang-undang berkenaan penggunaan budi bicara Hakim bicara akan menjadi lebih jelas sehingga membolehkan pihak-pihak memutuskan sama ada wajar untuk dikemukakan rayuan terhadap penggunaan budi bicara Hakim bicara.

Jika ini boleh dilakukan, ia akan menyebabkan prosiding perbicaraan akan dapat dikendalikan dengan lebih cepat dan berkesan. Ini adalah disebabkan penggunaan budi bicara yang menurut undang-undang oleh Hakim bicara tidak akan diganggu oleh Hakim Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan tanpa alasan yang sewajarnya. Ini akan mengelakkan prosiding bicara tertangguh atau diperintahkan untuk didengar semula semata-mata disebabkan Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan berpendapat penggunaan budi bicara Hakim bicara adalah tidak teratur.

Penelitian kepada Alasan Penghakiman dan kes ini tidak menunjukkan bahawa Hakim bicara telah tersalah arah dalam menggunakan budi bicaranya menolak permohonan pihak ketiga ini. Asas bahawa permohonan ini dibuat lewat dan ia tidak akan memprejudiskan tindakan berasingan kepada pihak ketiga adalah wajar dalam kes ini.

Oleh itu rayuan ini ditolak dengan kos. Bertarikh: 14h0Julai 2026 kooler ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Peguam Bagi Pihak : Shanmugam A/L Ramasamy Perayu Surenthiram Raj A/L Selvarajan (Tetuan Francis Pereira & Shan) Peguam Bagi Pihak : Ranizan bin Mokhtar Responden-Responden Muhammad Aliff Shafiq bin Maskor (Tetuan Ranizan Abdullah & Associates)