Clement Skinner J:

This is the hearing of three applications (in encls. 14, 26 and 39) made by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 and one application (in encl. 15) made by the 2nd defendant in Suit 22-43-2000. At the request of counsel, they were heard together as they raise common issues and in some of the written submissions handed in, the applications in both suits were addressed in one submission.

In each suit, the plaintiff, a licensed bank, granted banking facilities to the 1st defendant named therein. In respect of Suit 22-60-2000, the 1st defendant therein was granted banking facilities in the sum of RM5,000,000 upon the terms and conditions set out in a letter of offer dated 9 September 1996. The 2nd and 3rd defendants named in the aforementioned suit stood as guarantors to the banking facilities granted to the 1st defendant. On 31 May 2000, the plaintiff claiming that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were in breach of their respective obligations to it under the banking facilities and guarantee agreements respectively, commenced Suit 22-60-2000 against them.

In Suit 22-43-2000, the 1st defendant named therein was granted banking facilities in the sum of RM11,000,000 upon terms and conditions set out in four letters of offer dated 3 December 1994, 13 December 1994, 27 March 1995 and 27 March 1996 respectively. The 2nd defendant named in the aforementioned suit stood as guarantor to the banking facilities granted to the 1st defendant. On 19 April 2000, the plaintiff claiming that the 1st and 2nd defendants were in breach of their respective obligations to it under the banking facilities and guarantee agreements respectively, commenced Suit 22-43-2000 against them.

In each of the above suits, the plaintiff caused to be issued out of the registry of the High Court at Sibu, Sarawak, a writ of summons with a statement of claim indorsed thereon. On being served, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 each entered a conditional appearance in the action so as to be able to make these applications (ie, encls. 14, 26 and 39) and in Suit 22-43-2000 the 2nd defendant only entered a conditional appearance in the action so as to be able to make the application in encl. 15.

The defendants in both suits seek to set aside the writ of summons and the service thereof on them on the following grounds:

(a) The High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Sibu has no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate these actions and is also not the proper forum to try and adjudicate the same. This ground is relied upon by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 and by the 2nd defendant in Suit 22-43-2000.

(b) There had been failure by the plaintiff to comply with both limbs of O. 6 r. 2(1)(b) Rules of the High Court 1980 (hereafter 'the RHC'). This ground is relied upon by all three defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 and by the 2nd defendant in Suit 22-43-2000.

(c) There had been failure by the plaintiff to comply with O. 18 r. 6(1) RHC. This ground is relied on by all three defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 and by the 2nd defendant in Suit 22-43-2000.

(d) The purported service of the writ ought to be set aside as they were not served with a sealed copy of the writ. This ground is relied on by all three defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 and by the 2nd defendant in Suit 22-43-2000.

In support of their contention that the High Court in Sibu has no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate these actions, the 2nd and 3rd defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 and the 2nd defendant in Suit 22-43-2000 rely upon the following grounds:

(a) The plaintiff has its registered office and head office in Kuala Lumpur and from its pleadings, it appears that the plaintiff has a place of business in Kuala Lumpur.

(b) The 2nd defendant (in both suits), a businessman, is a director of the 1st and 3rd defendants in Suit 22-60-2000 and the 1st defendant in Suit 22-43-2000, resides at 2109, HR2, Riana Green, Jalan Tropicana Utara, 47410 Tropicana, Petaling Jaya, Selangor