It’s Time For An Intervention: Why People Apply to Become Parties to Existing Lawsuits

Many people, having received a letter from a law firm, completely freak out as if committed a crime and are simply waiting for the other shoe to drop – even though they have not done anything wrong! If you ask these people whether they would ever choose to get involved in an existing lawsuit, they will look at you as if you are mad. 

But did you know that the court is no stranger to individuals, companies, etc. pleading for the Court to add them to existing cases, or in technical legal terms, apply to intervene? 

This article discusses the various reasons someone (for present purposes, called the ‘proposed intervener’) might make an application to intervene in civil cases, and how they relate to the basic elements that must be satisfied for the granting of an intervention application. 

They might be…

1. Affected by the (potential) outcome of the case

Let’s say, that you are contractor. You were hired to work on a piece of land that is being leased by a company that you are dealing with. You are supposed to mine the minerals on the said land. However, you find out that the said company is currently embroiled in an ongoing case, in which the ownership over mining rights on the relevant land is in dispute. 

You might want to be involved because the outcome of this legal suit will directly affect your mining gig. This will ensure that someone will be representing and protecting your interests during the proceedings of the case. This was more or less the scenario in the classic case of Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52, from the perspective of the proposed intervener. In that case, the Court found that the contractor had a legal interest and was able to succeed in their intervention application.

So, how affected do you have to be?

Unfortunately, not everyone who is affected by a case is able to intervene. The law is clear on this. The proposed intervener must have legal interests that are directly affected by the outcome of the case. It is not enough to have commercial or monetary interest in the matter. 

Here are some case law-based examples where the Court ruled that a ‘legal interest’ would be ‘directly affected’:

1. Action for infringement of a patent or a trademark by selling infringing goods, where injunction is by owner of the said patent or trademark sought against the agent who is selling. The owner of the infringing goods have a legal interest and can intervene.
2. Action for administration of an estate or to execute trusts of property. An individual claims an interest in the estate or property can intervene.
3. Action for execution of a judgment against a credit company. Bank Negara can intervene to protect the interest of depositors and to ensure that investigations into the operation of the credit company would not be frustrated, or in other words, rendered moot.

Unfortunately, what constitutes ‘legal interest’ and ‘directly affected’ will depend on the facts of the case, with the aid of previous case law. The safest thing to do is to engage a lawyer to get legal advice on what is and what is not a ‘legal interest’ and whether their legal interest is ‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’ affected.

2. Not affected, but interested in the outcome of the case

As can be seen, those who apply to intervene because their legal interests would be directly affected, will likely succeed, and those with merely a monetary interest and/or would indirectly affected, would likely not.

However, what if there is a situation where another person’s case may affect yours in the future, even though it does not concern you? 

For example, you are a supplier for machinery related to plastic recycling. You enter into a contract to supply machines to a government body. That government body owes you a lot of money down the road. Meanwhile, a friend of yours who is also in the plastic recycling business, signs a similar contract with the same government body. One day, the government body files an action against your friend. You hear about your friend’s situation, and you realize that you are in a similar predicament – if he loses, there is a good chance that you will also lose because the Court will likely adopt the decision of the previously decided Court.

Unfortunately, in such circumstance, even though you are interested in the outcome of the case, you will not succeed in intervening in this instance.

3. Doing it for ulterior or collateral reasons

Just to clarify, applying to the Court for ulterior or collateral reasons, e.g. delaying the case, is an abuse of process of the Court. This is not a moral judgment, but simply the truth of the matter. However, there is no denying that there are people who ‘masuk campur’ in a case for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the case itself.

So, the next time you hear someone ‘intervening’ in a matter, and you do not understand how they could be remotely affected by the outcome of it, perhaps there could be a greater picture that you are not seeing, because you are not privy to the full facts. Once again, it is important to raise the caveat that what is understandable may not be acceptable.

Conclusion

The above represent three major reasons why anyone in their right mind would get involved in a lawsuit, whereas most people want to get out of lawsuits.

Aside from this, it is useful to have an idea of what elements are required for a successful application. Who knows, someday you might find yourself in a position where you have a good reason to ‘masuk campur’ in someone else’s case!

If you ever find yourself in that predicament, remember that lawsuits are often not cheap (in terms of expenses and legal fees), so it is very important to understand and query your lawyers as to the chances of success in the long run, and get an idea of the full extent of the legal expenses that you might roughly expect, so you may be better informed as to whether the intervention is worth the effort.