A study of Appeal No. 8 in AmGeneral Insurance Bhd v Sa’Amran Atan & Ors [2022] 8 CLJ 175 (Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v Navin Naicker & Anor)

A man who swears one thing on oath and then swears its opposite a month later has a problem. So, it turns out, does the insurer who builds its case on the first oath and ignores the second. Appeal No. 8 of Sa’Amran is the story of an insurer that found fraud where it wanted to find it, proved it in the wrong court, too late, with half the witnesses missing — and then discovered that a judgment it had let slip past would not be undone by an injunction. It is a cautionary tale about timing, and about the narrow window the statute gives an insurer to escape.

I.  AN ACCIDENT, AND A WITNESS WHO CHANGED HIS MIND

A. The Collision

On 13 April 2014 the claimant, Shahrul Iman bin Abdullah, was riding his motorcycle along the Kepong–Sungai Buloh road when he collided with another motorcycle and suffered grievous injuries. The second motorcycle belonged to Navin Naicker, the insured, and was covered by the appellant’s policy at the time.¹Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [237]. The claimant sued the owner and the rider in the Shah Alam Sessions Court, and gave the insurer notice of the proceedings, as the statute requires. The insurer engaged adjusters to find out what had happened.²Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [239].

B. The Two Oaths

What the adjusters produced was a contradiction. Their report, delivered in March 2016 — fully two years after the accident — recorded the insured saying that his motorcycle had not been involved in the collision at all. He swore a statutory declaration to that effect on 17 February 2016.³Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [240]. Then, barely a month later, on 25 March 2016, he swore a second statutory declaration retracting the first — now confirming that his motorcycle was involved.⁴Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [241]. In under two months the insured had told two opposite stories on oath.

The insurer chose the story it preferred. Armed with the first declaration, it applied to the Kuala Lumpur High Court under section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 for a declaration that the policy was void and unenforceable, on the footing that the claim was fraudulent. In July 2016 the High Court obliged.⁵Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [242].

C. The Insurer Lets the Clock Run

Here the insurer made the error that would cost it the appeal. Having obtained its declaration, it did nothing to stay the Sessions Court proceedings. It simply withdrew from defending the insured, reasoning that to go on defending would waive the declaration it had just won.⁶Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [243]. So the liability action rolled on, undefended. The Court of Appeal then set aside the section 96(3) declaration, holding that the many factual disputes made it unfit for the originating-summons procedure and directing the insurer to bring a writ action instead.⁷Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [244].

By the time that happened, the landscape had shifted under the insurer’s feet. The Shah Alam Sessions Court had entered judgment against the insured on 16 February 2017, and a default recovery judgment had been recorded against the insurer itself on 1 June 2017. Neither has ever been set aside or appealed.⁸Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [245]. The insurer’s declaration had evaporated; the victim’s judgments had crystallised.

II.  THE WRONG COURT, THE WRONG TIME, THE MISSING WITNESSES

A.  Two More Suits, and a Self-contradicting Order

The insurer’s response was to litigate harder. It filed two fresh suits in the Kuala Lumpur High Court: Suit 121, against the insured and rider, again seeking a declaration that the policy was void for fraud; and Suit 332, against the claimant, to impeach the default recovery judgment he had obtained.⁹Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [246]–[247].

The consolidated trial produced a curious result. The judge held, correctly, that since judgment on liability had already been entered against the insured, the insurer was no longer entitled to a section 96(3) declaration, and that the proper course was to apply to set aside the Sessions Court default judgment.¹⁰Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [248]. Then, having said exactly that, he granted the insurer an injunction restraining the claimant from enforcing his judgment until the insurer either failed to set aside the default judgment or won the recovery action on the merits.¹¹Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [249]–[250]. The order contradicted its own reasoning: the victim was told his judgment stood, and in the same breath forbidden to enforce it. Suit 332 was dismissed as procedurally misconceived.¹²Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [251]. The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer’s appeal and affirmed that, given section 96(3), the insurer could no longer secure a declaration once the claimant had obtained judgment against the insured — the declaration had to come first.¹³Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [253].

B.  Fraud Proved by Halves

When the matter reached the Federal Court, the fraud case collapsed under its own evidential weight. The whole section 96(3) application rested on the insured’s first statutory declaration — the one he later retracted — so the issue was, at bottom, whether the insured had committed fraud: a pure question of fact.¹⁴Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [254]. And on that question the insurer had given the High Court only half the picture. The investigating officer was never called. Neither was the commissioner for oaths before whom the two contradictory declarations were sworn — the one witness who might have explained which oath was the honest one. The judge saw only the two respondents, the adjusters’ report, and the declarations themselves.¹⁵Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [255]–[256].

A finding of fraud built on half the evidence, the Court held, could not be allowed to stand in the way of an unappealed Sessions Court judgment on liability. The evidence of fraud could and should have been led at trial; it was not.¹⁶Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [257]. Nor was there any explanation for why the insurer had marched off to the Kuala Lumpur High Court rather than simply returning to the Shah Alam Sessions Court to set aside the judgment against its insured.¹⁷Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [258].

III.  WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY DECIDED

A.  The Fact-bound Questions Went Unanswered

Three of the five leave questions — those asserting that the insurer was entitled to a declaration despite the courts below finding otherwise — were, the Court said, purely fact-centric. Their answers turned on proved facts, and there was nothing novel in any of them requiring the determination of the apex court. The Court declined to answer leave questions 1, 2 and 5 at all.¹⁸Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [259].

It added, for good measure, that even had it been minded to answer, the answers would not have helped the insurer: a subsisting, unappealed Sessions Court judgment stood against the insured, and the Court of Appeal had already set aside the declaratory order while upholding the decision on liability and quantum.¹⁹Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [260]. The insurer had nothing left to win.

B.  The Timing Questions Had Already Been Answered

The remaining two questions — leave questions 3 and 4 — concerned the heart of the matter: whether an insurer is shut out from a section 96(3) declaration once judgment has been entered against the insured, and whether a court may ignore the proviso to section 96(3), which entitles the insurer to apply for a declaration on seven days’ notice to the third-party claimant. The Court did not reinvent the wheel. It had decided the identical issues in Appeal No. 2 — coincidentally involving the same insurer and the same counsel — and simply applied those answers here.²⁰Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at [236], [261]. The formal disposition records the answers to Appeal No. 8 as lying in paragraphs [236], [259] and [261].²¹Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 at 262.

IV.  THE DISCIPLINE OF SECTION 96(3): DO IT FIRST, OR NOT AT ALL

Strip the appeal to its spine and a single principle emerges, and it is one of timing. Section 96(3) lets an insurer escape its statutory liability by obtaining, from a court, a declaration that the policy was void or unenforceable — but the subsection is built around a sequence. The escape must be secured before the liability is fixed by judgment against the insured. The proviso underlines the point: where proceedings against the insured are already on foot, the insurer must give the third-party claimant seven days’ notice of its declaration action, specifying its grounds, so that the victim may join and be heard.²²Section 96(3) RTA 1987 and its proviso; the timing principle was settled in Appeal No. 2 of Sa’Amran [2022] 8 CLJ 175 and applied to Appeal No. 8 at [236], [261]. The declaration is a pre-emptive remedy, not a long-stop.

The insurer in Navin Naicker inverted that sequence at every turn. It obtained its declaration ex parte in substance, then let the liability action proceed undefended, then watched the declaration fall away on appeal while the victim’s judgments hardened into finality. By the time it tried again, the window the statute allows had closed. An insurer that wishes to say “this policy answers for nothing” must say so in time, on notice, and prove it properly — not raise it years later, in the wrong forum, on half the evidence, once the victim has already won.

The injunction was the final misstep. Having correctly held that the insurer’s route was to set aside the default judgment, the High Court could not coherently restrain the victim from enforcing a judgment it had just declared valid. A court does not freeze a judgment it has refused to disturb. The relief contradicted the reasoning, and could not survive it.

V.  FRAUD IS NO SHORTCUT

It would be wrong to read Appeal No. 8 as indifference to fraud. Staged accidents and manufactured claims are real, and the statute does not require an insurer to pay a dishonest claim with its eyes open. What the case insists on is method. Fraud is a serious allegation of fact, and it must be proved as a fact — with the witnesses who can speak to it, in the court seized of the liability, before the judgment crystallises. An insurer that suspects fraud has tools: it may intervene in the liability action, lead the evidence of its adjusters and investigators, call the commissioner before whom suspicious oaths were sworn, and test the claim where it is being tried. What it may not do is bypass all of that, obtain a paper declaration on a single convenient oath, and then deploy it to unravel a judgment reached after a contested trial.

The two statutory declarations are the emblem of the whole affair. The insurer wanted the court to believe the first and disregard the second. But the man who swore them was the insurer’s own insured, and the only people who could have resolved which oath to trust — the investigating officer, the commissioner for oaths — were never put before the judge. An allegation of fraud proved by selecting one of two contradictory oaths, and withholding the witnesses who might explain the contradiction, is not fraud proved. It is fraud asserted.

VI.  THE SHAPE OF THE RULE

Appeal No. 8 leaves the law where the structure of the statute always pointed. An insurer’s right to escape under section 96(3) is real but time-bound: it must be exercised before judgment fixes the insured’s liability, on proper notice to the victim, and made good with proper evidence. Miss that window — by delay, by choosing the wrong court, by failing to call the witnesses who matter — and the right is spent. The victim’s unappealed judgment stands, and the insurer must pay.

For the injured claimant, this is the difference between a remedy and a mirage. He won his case at trial and recorded judgment; he should not have to defend that victory afresh because his opponent’s insurer, having backed the wrong oath and let the clock run, wished for a second chance in a friendlier forum. The statute gives the insurer one timely, properly evidenced opportunity to say the policy is void. Navin Naicker confirms that it is one opportunity, not an open-ended licence — and that an injunction cannot be pressed into service to buy back the time the insurer let slip.

∞§∞

This article is written for a general readership and does not constitute technical or legal advice. Readers with legal questions are encouraged to seek independent legal advice.

The author thanks KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela, and Lydia Jaynthi at GK Legal. Our gratitude to Tom Pumford of Unsplash for the image.

Claude, Anthropic’s AI, smoothed the drafting; Perplexity Pro checked the facts. The argument, the views, and the errors remain the author’s.

@Copyright reserved.

All content on this site, including but not limited to text, compilation, graphics, documents, and layouts, is the intellectual property of GK Ganesan Kasinathan and is protected by local and international copyright laws. Any use shall be invalid unless written permission is obtained by writing to gk@gkganesan.com.