CASE OF THE WEEK

The plaintiff/appellant appointed the defendant/respondent as the insurance brokers to secure insurance coverage for the plaintiff's aircraft. Subsequently a mishap happened, causing substantial damage to the aircraft. The plaintiff was later informed by the defendant that the claim was repudiated by the insurers. The plaintiff thus commenced the present suit against the defendant. The plaintiff entered judgment in default of appearance against the defendant. The defendant's application to set aside the said judgment was dismissed by the Registrar. The defendant's appeals to the Judge in Chambers and to the Court of Appeal were dismissed. The defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was also dismissed. Hence, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and the merits of the defendant's defence had been considered by the High Court, Court of Appeal and by the Federal Court. The defendant subsequently applied under O. 18 r. 19(1)(a) and/or (d) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 to strike out the plaintiff's writ of summons and statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was an abuse of the process of the court. The defendant relied on evidence which showed that the aircraft was registered in the name of Sprint Air Inc and not the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the subject matter of the claim. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had been duly heard and had exhausted all the available legal avenues to raise whatsoever merits or submissions or objections against the plaintiff's claim before the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court and, consequently, the defendant ought not to be allowed to raise the same objections against the same claim in the defendant's application. The plaintiff also contended that if the defendant, having knowledge of the legal argument pertaining to "insurable interest", failed to raise it in the four forums open to it earlier, the defendant must now be estopped from raising it and hiding under the veil of the purported "fresh evidence". The High Court allowed the defendant's application and struck out the plaintiff's writ of summons and statement of claim. Hence, the plaintiff brought this appeal against that decision.

Held (dismissing appeal with costs)

Per Abdul Malik Ishak JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The plea of res judicata did not apply in this case because of the existence of special circumstances. It is an exception to the general rule. The court will not permit the parties to open the same subject of litigation except in special cases. In the context of the present appeal it was the existence of fresh evidence; Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Prorak Sdn Bhd & Anor (refd). (paras 14 & 15)

(2) The defendant had amply provided sufficient evidence to show to the court that there were special circumstances that ought to be considered, namely: (a) the plaintiff's false pleading; (b) the unconscionable conduct of the plaintiff by its failure to disclose relevant and material facts; and (c) the challenge to locus standi which would result in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit in limine. The issue of locus standi was never raised by reason of the fraud perpetrated by the plaintiff in not disclosing a very material fact - that the plaintiff was not the owner of the Cessna aircraft in question; Everise Hectares Sdn Bhd v. Citibank Bhd (refd). (paras 16-18)

(3) The documents evidencing ownership of the Cessna aircraft should be admitted as fresh evidence to show that the plaintiff was not the registered owner of the aircraft and, consequently, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant should be struck out. (para 28)

(4) Since the plaintiff was not the registered owner of the aircraft, it had no locus standi to commence this suit against the defendant. Likewise, the judgment-in-default should have been set aside and the whole action should be struck out for want of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff to initiate this proceeding. The present plaintiff is the wrong litigant. The right litigant is Sprint Air Inc. (paras 30-31)

(5) The judgment-in-default was obtained by the plaintiff based on a misrepresentation of fact and by fraud and that would entitle the defendant to set aside the judgment in default. By not revealing and disclosing the material fact that the aircraft was not registered in the plaintiff's name, and by not disclosing the relevant documents to show the legal ownership of the Cessna aircraft, the plaintiff had committed fraud towards this court. The non-disclosure of the material documents during the hearing amounted to an unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff and such unconscionable conduct amounted to nothing less than fraud. (paras 36-37)

(6) An insurance contract is a contract uberrima fides. An insurer can avoid the insurance policy if he can prove that there has been misrepresentation of a material fact by the assured; Asia Insurance Co Ltd v. Tat Hong Plant Leasing Pte Ltd (refd). (para 53)

(7) The plaintiff had no insurable interest in the aircraft at the very inception of the insurance policy because the plaintiff was not the registered legal owner of the aircraft. (para 57)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation of Headnotes

Plaintif/perayu telah melantik defendan/responden sebagai broker insurans untuk mendapatkan perlindungan insurans bagi pesawat plaintif. Kemudian, kejadian yang tidak diingini telah berlaku hingga menyebabkan kerosakan besar kepada pesawat. Plaintif seterusnya dimaklumkan oleh defendan bahawa tuntutan tersebut ditolak oleh penanggung insurans. Plaintif memulakan tindakan ini terhadap defendan. Plaintif memasukkan penghakiman ingkar bagi kehadiran, terhadap defendan. Permohonan defendan untuk mengetepikan penghakiman tersebut ditolak oleh Pendaftar. Rayuan defendan kepada Hakim dalam Kamar dan Mahkamah Rayuan telah ditolak. Permohonan defendan bagi keizinan untuk merayu kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan juga ditolak. Oleh itu, merit-merit tuntutan plaintif dan merit-merit pembelaan defendan telah dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan. Defendan kemudiannya memohon di bawah A. 18 k. 19(1)(a) dan/atau (d) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 untuk membatalkan writ saman dan penyataan tuntutan plaintif atas alasan bahawa ia tidak mendedahkan sebarang kausa tindakan munasabah atau merupakan penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah. Defendan bersandarkan kepada bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa pesawat tersebut telah didaftarkan di bawah nama Sprint Air Inc dan bukannya plaintif. Dengan itu, defendan mendakwa bahawa plaintif tidak mempunyai kepentingan boleh insurans dalam perkara tuntutan tersebut. Plaintif mengemukakan bahawa defendan telah didengar dengan sewajarnya dan menggunakan kesemua saluran undang-undang untuk membangkitkan apa jua merit, hujahan atau bantahan terhadap tuntutan plaintif di hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan dan, akibatnya, defendan tidak seharusnya dibenarkan untuk membangkitkan bantahan yang sama terhadap tuntutan yang sama dalam permohonan defendan. Plaintif juga menghujahkan bahawa jika defendan, dengan pengetahuan hujahan undang-undang berkaitan `kepentingan boleh insurans', gagal untuk membangkitkannya dalam keempat-empat forum terbuka tersebut, defendan mestilah diestop daripada membangkitkan dan berselindung di balik dakwaan `bukti baru'. Mahkamah Tinggi membenarkan permohonan defendan dan membatalkan writ saman dan penyataan tuntutan plaintif. Oleh itu, plaintif merayu terhadap keputusan tersebut.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan dengan kos)

Oleh Abdul Malik Ishak HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Rayuan res judicata tidak terpakai dalam kes ini kerana terdapatnya hal keadaan khas. Ia adalah pengecualian kepada peraturan am. Mahkamah tidak akan membenarkan pihak-pihak untuk membuka subjek litigasi yang sama kecuali dalam kes-kes khas dan dalam konteks rayuan ini, ia adalah kewujudan bukti baru (Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Prorak Sdn Bhd & Anor; dirujuk).

(2) Defendan telah mengemukakan banyak bukti yang mencukupi untuk menunjukkan kepada mahkamah bahawa terdapat keadaan khas yang sepatutnya dipertimbangkan, iaitu: (a) pliding palsu plaintif; (b) perilaku berat sebelah plaintif dengan kegagalannya untuk mendedahkan fakta relevan dan penting; dan (c) cabaran kepada locus standi yang akan mengakibatkan penolakan guaman plaintif in limine. Isu locus standi tidak pernah dibangkitkan oleh sebab penipuan yang dilakukan oleh plaintif kerana tidak mendedahkan fakta yang amat material - bahawa plaintif bukan pemilik pesawat Cessna yang menjadi pertikaian (Everise Hektar Sdn Bhd v. Citibank Bhd; dirujuk).

(3) Dokumen-dokumen yang membuktikan pemilikan pesawat Cessna harus diterima sebagai keterangan baru untuk menunjukkan bahawa plaintif bukan pemilik berdaftar pesawat dan, akibatnya, tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan harus dibatalkan.

(4) Oleh kerana plaintif bukan pemilik berdaftar pesawat, ia tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk memulakan tindakan ini terhadap defendan. Begitu juga dengan penghakiman ingkar yang harus diketepikan dan seluruh tindakan harus dibatalkan kerana ketiadaan locus standi di pihak plaintif untuk memulakan prosiding ini. Plaintif dalam tindakan ini adalah litigan yang salah. Litigan yang sepatutnya adalah Sprint Udara Inc.

(5) Penghakiman ingkar telah diperolehi oleh plaintif berdasarkan salah nyataan fakta dan fraud dan ini melayakkan defendan untuk mengetepikan penghakiman ingkar. Dengan tidak mendedahkan fakta material bahawa pesawat tersebut tidak didaftarkan atas nama plaintif, dan dengan tidak mendedahkan dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan untuk menunjukkan pemilikan sah pesawat Cessna, plaintif telah melakukan penipuan terhadap mahkamah ini. Ketidakdedahan dokumen-dokumen penting semasa pendengaran terjumlah kepada perilaku berat sebelah di pihak plaintif dan perilaku sedemikian adalah tidak kurang daripada penipuan.

(6) Sesuatu kontrak insurans adalah kontrak uberrima fides. Penanggung insurans boleh mengelakkan polisi insurans jika dia boleh membuktikan bahawa telah berlaku salah nyataan fakta material oleh pihak yang diinsuranskan; (Asia Insurance Co Ltd v. Tat Hong Plant Leasing Pte Ltd; dirujuk).

(7) Plaintif tidak mempunyai kepentingan boleh insurans ke atas pesawat di awal permulaan polisi insurans kerana plaintif bukan pemilik berdaftar pesawat yang sah.

Case(s) referred to:

Arah Cipta Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Kian Kee Sawmills (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1997] 2 MLJ 11 CA (refd)

Asia Insurance Co Ltd v. Tat Hong Plant Leasing Pte Ltd [1992] 1 CLJ 330; [1992] 4 CLJ (Rep) 324 HC (refd)

Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 4 CLJ 7 SC (refd)

Chung Kuo Ping v. Malaysian Assurance Alliance Bhd [2008] 3 CLJ 752 CA (refd)

Everise Hectares Sdn Bhd v Citibank Bhd [2011] 2 CLJ 25 CA (refd)

Government of Malaysia v. Dato Chong Kok Lim [1973] 1 LNS 35 HC (refd)

Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang & Another Case [1988] 1 CLJ 219; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 63 SC (refd)

Henderson v. Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 (refd)

Hock Hua Bank Bhd v. Sahari Murid [1980] 1 LNS 92 FC (refd)

Hoystead And Others v. Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155 (refd)

Hue Ngee On v. Chai Woo Sien (sebagai Pegawai Awam Persatuan Hakka Kulai, Johor) [2009] 5 CLJ 734 CA (refd)

Ladd v. Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 (refd)

Lai Yoke Ngan & Anor v. Chin Teck Kwee & Anor [1997] 3 CLJ 305 FC (refd)

Ling Kuok Teck & Anor v. Tseng Choon Chin & Ors [1995] 3 CLJ 889 HC (refd)

Parasuraman Kuppan v. Sazali Md Akhir & Anor [1997] 4 CLJ 62 HC (refd)

Pengiran Othman Shah Pengiran Mohd Yusoff & Anor v. Karambunai Resorts Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 1 CLJ 257 CA (refd)

Raja Zainal Abidin Raja Haji Takchik & Ors v. British-American Life & General Insurance Bhd [1993] 3 CLJ 606 SC (refd)

Tan Keat Seng Kitson v. Kerajaan Malaysia [1996] 2 CLJ 722 HC (refd)

Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Prorak Sdn Bhd & Anor [2000] 1 CLJ 553 CA (refd)

UMBC Finance Bhd v. Dato' Seri Dr M Mahadevan Mahalingam [2008] 6 CLJ 191 CA (refd)

Veronica Lee Ha Ling & Ors v. Maxisegar Sdn Bhd [2009] 6 CLJ 232 FC (refd)

Wong Cheong Kong Sdn Bhd v. Prudential Assurance Sdn Bhd [1998] 1 CLJ 916 HC (refd)

Yeo Siew Kiow lwn. Nyo Chu Alang & Yang Lain [1996] 1 LNS 104 HC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (d), O. 42 r. 13, O. 56 r. 1(3A)

Counsel:

For the appellant - K Jeyaraj; M/s K Jeyaraj Fadhli Sin

For the respondent - M Menon (Nor Adila Ahmad Taib with him); M/s Jaffar & Menon

[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Suit No: D4-22-1552-2005]

Reported by Amutha Suppayah