The Malaysian High Court has jurisdiction under s 23(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 in cases involving foreign defendants when local defendants reside within its jurisdiction.

[1] On 27 May 2016, the appellant commenced the present action against the respondent and the 2nd to 8th defendants in the High Court. The facts of the case appear sufficiently in the statement of claim in which it is pleaded that the appellant is a Jakarta-domiciled company and the respondent who is an Indonesian citizen residing in Jakarta, is responsible for the business management, operations and running of the appellant. The 2nd to 8th defendants who are the respondents relatives, are Malaysian citizens residing in Malaysia. Essentially, the appellants claim against the respondent, qua the 1st defendant in this action before the High Court, is with respect to the appellants monies, approximately IDR 600 billion, which were allegedly paid out by the respondent wrongfully and without authority, approval or consent of the appellant to the 2nd to 8th defendants who were said to have received the monies knowing that it had been paid to them in breach of the respondents duties to the appellant (unauthorised payments). It is noteworthy that the appellant has also filed a legal action in Indonesia against the respondent which action it is alleged by the respondent, is similar to the instant action in the Court below. So far as it concerns the present action, we must necessarily highlight in this regard that the appellants causes of action against the respondent are premised on breach of duties as particularised in para 20 of the statement of claim, fraud, breach of trust and conspiracy to defraud whereas the causes of action against the 2nd to 8th defendants are predicated on torts of knowing receipt, fraud, conspiracy to defraud and constructive trust.

[2] On 10 October 2016, the respondent filed a notice of application in encl 22 pursuant to O 12 r 10(1)(a), (b), (c) and (g) and (2) to (5) of the Rules of 2012 seeking inter alia, a declaration that in the circumstances of the case, the High Court has no jurisdiction over the respondent in respect of the subject matter of the claim or the relief or remedy sought in this action, an order that all further proceedings be stayed on the basis that Malaysia is not the proper forum for the dispute in this action and an order that the Writ of Summons dated 27 May 2016, Concurrent Writ of Summons dated 14 July 2016, Statement of Claim dated 27 May 2016 as well as the service of these cause papers on the respondent be set aside. It is also worthy of mention that earlier, on 29 June 2016, the 2nd to 8th defendants filed their application in encl 7 seeking similar reliefs from the High Court.

[3] On 20 January 2017, the learned judge allowed the respondents application declaring that the Malaysian courts lacked jurisdiction and was not forum conveniens to try the civil suit against the respondent, but dismissed the 2nd to 8th defendants application holding that the Malaysian Court could exercise jurisdiction and was the proper forum conveniens to try the civil suit against them. The appellant appealed against the High Courts decision. The 2nd to 8th defendants too, filed their separate appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)(NCVC)-316-02-2017. Both appeals came up for hearing before us on 10 August 2017. We heard this appeal first and allowed it. In view of our decision, we consequently dismissed Civil Appeal No 316.

[4] A point of importance which comes sharply into focus from this action is whether the High Court is se