Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1413
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SIVASUBRAMANIAM SIVAYOGARASINGAM – Appellant
Versus
SAUMIAN SIVAYOGARAJASINGAM & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCC-114-08-2022]
The court ruled that a transfer of proceedings within the same division of the High Court is not permitted under Order 57 of the Rules of Court 2012, emphasizing the need for distinct parties and issues in related suits.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 57 - Transfer of Proceedings - Plaintiff sought to transfer Suit 114 to another High Court for consolidation with related suits due to intra-family financial disputes. Defendants opposed, arguing the application was baseless and irrelevant. Court found no sufficient grounds for transfer, noting differences in parties and issues among the suits. (Paras 1, 3, 21, 32, 34)
(B) Transfer Applications - Criteria for transfer require that proceedings can be more conveniently or fairly tried in another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Court emphasized that mere similarity in factual background does not justify transfer if legal issues differ. (Paras 8, 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a father, filed Suit 114 against his son, alleging financial disputes related to family-owned companies, while seeking to consolidate with other related suits. The Defendants contended the transfer application was a tactical maneuver to delay proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the suits had distinct parties and issues, ruling that it was not just or convenient to transfer Suit 114 to another High Court.
Issues: The main issues included whether the transfer application was justified based on the alleged similarity of disputes and if the Court had jurisdiction to transfer within the same division.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the transfer application was not warranted as the suits involved different parties and legal issues. The mere existence of related disputes did not justify transfer, emphasizing the need for impartiality in judicial proceedings.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer of suits based on related financial disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants argue against transfer application, citing legal misinterpretations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. court's analysis on transfer application and related legal provisions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff's application is made pursuant to O 57 Rules of Court 2012 for an Order that this suit (BA-22NCC-114-08/2022, after this is refer to as "Suit 114") be transferred to another Shah Alam High Court that is SAHC NCvC 3.
[2] In its application, the Plaintiff states that:
(a) there are 4 Suits been registered in Shah Alam High Court (SAHC) as follows:
i. one Suit registered in July NCvC10: BA-22NCC-98- 07/2022 (after this is refer to as "Suit 98").
ii. one Suit registered in August at this Court (NCvC12): BA-22NCC-114-08/2022 (after this is refer to as "Suit 114").
iii. two Suits registered in October 2022 at NCvC3: BA- 22NCC-131-10/2022 (after this is refer to as "Suit 131") and BA-24NCC-109-10/2022 (after this is refer to as "OS 109").
(b) the Plaintiff is also concurrently filed an application to transfer Suit 98 to NCvC3 and to consolidate Suit 131 and OS 109. And it is intended that both Suit 98 and Suit 114 upon their transfer to NCvC3 would be consolidated with the Suits that were already at NCvC3.
(c) all the 4 Suits have arisen principally due to financial disputes between the Plaintiff (father) and the First Defendant in this Suit/Suit 114 (his only son) in family-owned companies.
(d) the Plaintiff stated that he had provided all the capital resources to the companies while the Defendant and the other family members hold shares in the companies. The Plaintiff pleaded that the dispute is caused by the Defendant's greedy intention to control the companies and to lay hands on the considerable assets in the companies.
(e) the family-owned companies are:
Avis Holdings Sdn Bhd (the Second Defendant in this Suit/Suit 114 and the second defendant in Suit 98).
Larico Infrastructure Sdn Bhd (the Third Defendant in this Suit/Suit 114 and the plaintiff in OS 109).
Austin Holdings Sdn Bhd (the defendant in Suit 131).
(f) the 4 Suits are related to similar intra-family disputes in the same family. Therefore, it would be more convenient and just for all the 4 Suits to be heard in the same Court that is in SAHC NCvC3. Further, it would be in the interest of justice that the same forum is utilized to have the disputes dealt with in a fair and consistent manner and also can be disposed off at the same time.
Objections By The Defendants
The First Defendant's Contentions
[3] From the written submission by the First Defendant, the First Defendant contended that the Plaintiff's Transfer Application are:
scandalous, oppressive and irrelevant pursuant to O 57 of the Rules of Court 2012.
misconceived in law.
baseless.
impossibility/no certainty of subsequent consolidation.
tactical maneuver.
[4] The Plaintiff's application is obviously designed to disparage the First Defendant's image in an attempt to colour or prejudice these proceedings. The disparaging remarks of the First Defendant are casting bare and scandalous allegations including but not limited to:
(i) the First Defendant was illegally moving large sums of money to dummy companies for illegal purposes;
(ii) the First Defendant had illegally made the Plaintiff shareholders and signatories in these dummy companies;
(iii) the First Defendant was unlawfully enriching himself at the expense of the Plaintiff;
(iv) the 1st Defendant is dishonest and greedy,
which in any event, (a) were never the Plaintiff's pleaded case in any of the Suit(s); and (b) more importantly, scandalous, irrelevant and otherwise oppressive.
[5] With that, the First Defendant pray that this Court exercises its discretion to strike out irrelevant allegations made by the Plaintiff in his affidavits
