The court ruled that the Singapore High Court is the appropriate forum for claims arising from an accident in Malaysia, emphasizing established liability and the principle of forum non conveniens.

JUDGMENT

Indra Nehru Savandiah JC:

Introduction

[1] The applicants filed the originating summons seeking a declaratory order that the Malaysian Courts specifically refer to Selayang Sessions Court as having the jurisdiction to hear the respondents' claim as the accident, the cause of the action, took place in Malaysia.

[2] The applicants further seek an order not to be held liable to satisfy any judgments obtained by the respondents in the Singapore Courts.

Background Facts

[3] The respondents, all Singaporeans, travelled in a bus bearing registration number PKF2212 driven by the third applicant, owned by the second applicant and insured by the first applicant.

[4] A trip to Genting Highlands turned tragic when the bus the respondents were travelling on the return journey to Singapore was involved in an accident at KM31.3 Lebuhraya Karak, Gombak, at about 4 pm on 31 August 2016.

[5] The respondents were initially treated in Malaysia. However, within a few days after the accident, the respondents were transferred to Singapore for further medical treatment.

[6] The respondents sustained severe injuries from the accident. The injuries are brain injuries, including right-sided subdural haemorrhage, loss of consciousness, head trauma, facial fractures, rib fractures, spinal fractures, thoracic injuries, including bilateral pneumothorax, acute kidney injuries, hearing loss, anosmia, ankle fractures, lacerations, abrasions, and psychiatric problems The first and sixth respondents have not fully recovered from the injuries they sustained and suffer from mobility issues whereby they cannot perform numerous daily activities without assistance.

[7] After the accident, the respondents initiated several legal proceedings in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore as follows:

(i) HC Suit No 1044/2018 against the second and third applicants and one Grassland Express & Tours Pte Ltd

(ii) HC Suit No 1307/2018 against the second and third applicants and one Grassland Express Pte Ltd

[8] The third applicant was sued for negligent bus driving, while the second applicant was sued under vicarious liability as the employer.

[9] R Manokaran and his family did not file a police report. Wee Chye Hee filed police report No 013574/16 at Gombak Police Station on 2 September 2016. The third applicant, Chuah Ah Leng, also filed a police report on 3 September 2016.

[10] On 19 October 2018, the first to fourth respondents initiated civil suit No: 1044/2018 in the High Court of Singapore against the second and third applicants.

[11] The second and third applicants were served with a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in Suit No 1044/2018. They did not enter an appearance within the specified time, which led to the first to fourth respondents obtaining a judgment in default against them.

[12] The second and third applicants subsequently set aside the judgment in default and filed their defences. After a full trial, the High Court of Singapore rendered a verdict on liability against the third applicant on 3 August 2021 and against the second applicant on 16 March 2022. The High Court of Singapore has also provided its grounds for judgment, which are included as exhibit "A-4" in encl 82.

[13] The fifth and sixth respondents filed a civil suit against the second and third applicants, making the same claims as the first to fourth respondents. This suit was registered as No 1307/2018.

[14] In case No 1307/2018, the second and third applicants were served with a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. They did not respond within the specified time, which led to the fifth and sixth respondents obtaining a default judgment against them.

[15] The second and third applicants set aside the default judgment and filed their defences. After a full trial, the High Court of Singapore ruled on liability, finding against the third applicant on 3 August 2021 and against the second applicant on 16 March 2022. The High Court of Singapore has also provided its grounds for judgment