Back
2020 MarsdenLR 2877
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
MOHD SUMALI REDUAN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MOHD FASIAH MOHD FAKEH (ENCL 5) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCVC-374-08/2019]
The court determines the appropriate forum for civil proceedings based on local jurisdiction and convenience for witnesses, emphasizing that a transferred case must reflect substantial connection to the venue.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 57, Rule 1 – Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Transfer of proceedings – Defendant's application to transfer proceedings to Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed as Shah Alam was deemed the appropriate forum based on the factors of convenience and jurisdiction. The cause of action arose in Selangor, where the Defendant resides and where the relevant documents and witnesses are located. (Paras 10, 15, 28)
(B)
Jurisdiction – The court held that as long as any one of the four conditions of s 23 is met, the court seised with jurisdiction to try a civil proceeding retains that jurisdiction irrespective of the alternative venue's appropriateness. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The Defendant, after resigning from UMNO, was alleged to have breached a contract and caused loss, prompting the Plaintiffs to seek compensation. The proceedings sought to be transferred were similar to a case pending in Kuala Lumpur.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to remain in Shah Alam, emphasizing the local connection to the cause of action and the convenience for witnesses.
Issues
: The main issue was whether the proceedings should be transferred, considering the convenience of witnesses and the local jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court ruled on the principles of forum conveniens and the proper jurisdiction for the trial based on where the cause of action arose, emphasizing convenience and access to justice.
Result:
Application dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
[1] This is the Defendant's application vide encl 5 to transfer the proceedings in this court to the Kuala Lumpur High court to be heard together with the Kuala Lumpur High court Civil Suit No. WA-22NCVC-574-08/2019 (the KL suit).
[2] The following cause papers are referred to:
(i) The Defendant's Notice of Application dated 18 September 2019 (Enclosure 5)
(ii) The Defendant's Affidavit in Support affirmed on 30 September 2019 (Enclosure 6)
(iii) The Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 16 October 2019 (Enclosure 7)
(iv) The Defendant's Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 24 October 2019 (Enclosure 8)
Background Facts
[3] Both Plaintiffs are representatives and/or officers for the political parties of United Malays National Congress (UMNO) and Barisan Nasional (BN) respectively.
[4] The Defendant was previously a member of UMNO and he currently sits as a Member of Parliament for Sabak Bernam, Selangor.
[5] On or about 15 December 2018 the Defendant announced his resignation as a member of UMNO and shortly thereafter he joined the newly formed political party known as Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (BERSATU).
[6] As a direct result of this, the Plaintiffs issued a letter of demand to the Defendant on 15 August 2019 alleging inter alia that the Defendant had committed a breach of contract, legitimate expectation, trust and unjust enrichment and demanded compensation from the Defendant in the sum of RM10,000,000.00.
[7] Shortly thereafter the Plaintiffs proceeded to file the KL suit and this suit against the Defendant both of which are based in, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of trust, unjust enrichment, legitimate expectations and damages.
[8] The grounds for the Defendant's preference that Kuala Lumpur is the forum conveniens to hear and determine these proceedings is as follows:-
- Headquarters for UMNO and Barisan Nasional are situated in PWTC, Kuala Lumpur. The formation of the alleged contract could only have arisen in the UMNO and Barisan Nasional headquarters which is situated in Kuala Lumpur. Any discussions pertaining to strategy and/or funding for the 14th GE would have been held in PWTC, Kuala Lumpur;
- The alleged financial aid and terms governing the same would have been approved by the top echelons of UMNO/Barisan Nasional at its headquarters in Kuala Lumpur;
- Although the Defendant is a member of the House of Representatives in the constituency of Sabak Bernam, he contends that the witnesses whom he will likely call in the event the matter proceeds to trial all reside in Kuala Lumpur and undue expenses and hardship will be incurred to bring these witnesses to Shah Alam;
- The cause of action pleaded in these proceedings is strikingly similar and/or the same with the cause of action leaded in the Kuala Lumpur High court proceedings. The defendant believes that it would be in the interest of all concerned to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decision on the same issue and/or subject matter on grounds of multiplicity of proceedings.
[9] The Plaintiff on the other hand objected to the application and contended that the forum conveniens for this case presently before the court is correct and should remain here for the following reasons:-
- Clause 12 of the UMNO Constitution provides for branches to be established at every state and for Selangor it is situated at Badan Perhubungan UMNO (BPU). This is also where the Defendant handed his application form to become a member; the discussions between the Defendant and the Selangor UMNO chiefs involving the subject matter of this case were held in BPU Selangor;
- The financial assistance given to the Defendant to finance his election campaign were channelled to him from BPU, Selangor;
- The Plaintiffs' witnesses are residing in Selangor including the members of the UMNO branch in Selangor, as well as the election campaigners who had attended the programmes held to promote the Defendant. It would entail logistical and financial problems for the Plaintiffs if th
