Back
2023 MarsdenLR 865
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MMIP SERVICES SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MOHD SYED SYED JAMALUDIN & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(A)-2417-12-2021]
The court emphasized that ex parte orders are provisional and must allow the affected parties the opportunity to be heard, reinforcing the principles of natural justice and statutory rights under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.
Headnote:(A) Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 - Sections 3(3) and 5(1)(a)(ii) - Road Transport Act 1987 - Section 96 - Ex parte order - High Court found that defendants failed to challenge jurisdiction of Singapore courts and obtained ex parte order without plaintiffs being heard - Ex parte order set aside as it contravened statutory rights of plaintiffs and principles of natural justice. (Paras 13, 14, 16, 34, 42)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that the defendants' claim of lack of jurisdiction of Singapore courts did not justify the ex parte order since the defendants had prior knowledge of the proceedings and chose not to participate. (Paras 17, 18, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a bus accident on 24 December 2016, resulting in fatalities and injuries. The plaintiffs, who are Singaporean, filed claims in Singapore against the bus owner and driver. Defendants, aware of the suits, sought an ex parte order in Malaysia to dispute jurisdiction. (Paras 3, 5, 11)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the defendants were fully aware of the plaintiffs' claims and had the opportunity to challenge the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts but failed to do so. The ex parte order was deemed irregular and prejudicial to the plaintiffs. (Paras 13, 14, 19)
Issues: The main issues were whether the ex parte order should stand given the defendants' prior knowledge of the Singapore judgments and the plaintiffs' right to be heard. (Paras 16, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the ex parte order was improperly obtained, as it denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to defend their interests, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions under the REJA. (Paras 34, 42)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to plaintiffs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the appeal case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the bus accident and plaintiffs' claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. defendants argue jurisdiction of singapore courts. (Para 7 , 17) |
| 4. court's view on defendants' awareness of proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. discussion on ex parte orders and jurisdiction. (Para 18 , 19 , 22) |
| 6. legal reasoning behind setting aside ex parte orders. (Para 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 7. discussion on natural justice and bad faith. (Para 31 , 32 , 34 , 36) |
| 8. defendants' actions contravene reja. (Para 37 , 40 , 42) |
| 9. conclusion on defendants' appeal and costs. (Para 43) |
Introduction
[1] This appeal emanated from the decision of the learned High Court Judge (LHCJ) at Kuala Lumpur High Court allowing the plaintiffs'/the respondents' application via the Originating Summons No WA-24NCvC-1594-08/2021 (OS 1594) dated 25 August 2021 to set aside an ex parte order dated 16 July 2021 (the ex parte Order) obtained by the defendants/the respondents via Originating Summons No WA-24NCvC-1306-07/2021 dated 14 July 2021 (OS 1306). Hearing of the applications under OS 1306 and OS 1594 were before the same LHCJ.
[2] For ease of reference, parties will be identified as in the trial Court, the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Brief Facts
[3] A very tragic bus accident had occurred on 24 December 2016 at KM 137.2 of the North South Expressway near Muar, in the state of Johor (the said accident). On that fateful day, the bus bearing registration number AJC 6633 owned by the 2nd defendant and insured by the 1st defendant had departed from JB Sentral in Johor Bahru and enroute to Kuala Lumpur's Bandar Tasik Selatan Integrated Bus Terminal. The bus was driven by the 3rd defendant who was said to be the servant and/or agent of the 2nd defendant.
[4] At the time of the said accident, it was alleged that the 3rd defendant was driving at high speed when he lost control of the bus and the bus plunged into a ravine. As a result of the accident, 6 men including the 3rd defendant, who was driving the bus, 8 women and 1 child were killed. Among the injured were 7 Malaysians, 6 Singaporeans, 2 Myanmar nationals and 1 person whose nationality was not identified. First, third, fourth, sixth and ninth plaintiffs who are Singaporean and were seriously injured were conveyed back to Singapore for medical treatment after they were initially treated in the Muar Hospital within hours of the said accident.
[5] All plaintiffs who are Singaporean, appointed Messrs. United Legal Alliance LLC now known as Messrs. Civic Legal LLC (CLL) to file actions against the 2nd defendant as the owner of the bus and the 3rd defendant as the driver of the bus for negligence, in the High Court of Singapore. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 9th plaintiffs are claiming damages for their injuries, 2nd and 5th plaintiffs are claiming as the administrator of the deceased Hamimah Mammu, 7th plaintiff is claiming as the administrator of the deceased Faridah Tamron and, 8th plaintiff is claiming as the administrator of the deceased Nur Hazimah Mustafa.
[6] Before filing the actions, CLL had notified the 1st defendant, the insurers of the bus, about the plaintiffs' intention to file the writ actions in the High Court of Singapore. The 1st defendant then appointed Messrs. Silva Velu & Co (SVC) to handle the matter and responded to CLL's notices.
[7] In its response to CLL, SVC had stated that the Singapore Courts have no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the cause of action arose in Malaysia and the defendants would not submit to the Courts' jurisdiction in Singapore. Notwithstanding the same, CLL proceeded to file writ actions against the defendants at the High Court of Singapore.
[8] All the writs of summonses were duly served on the 1st defendant vide several notices of commencement dated on 10 October 2019 whereby SVC had duly acknowledged receipt. As the defendants took no further action to either enter an appearance or
