The court has the power to transfer cases between divisions of the High Court in the same locality for judicial efficiency, emphasizing the importance of common issues and the avoidance of conflicting judgments.

[1]Enclosure 58 is an application by the Plaintiff to transfer the present NCvC10 suit here to Shah Alam High Court NCvC3 so that it can be heard and decided by the same Judge as two other pending suits in NCvC3.

[2]Apart from the two other suits pending in NCvC3 and this NCvC10 suit, there is also another pending suit in NCvC12 which the Plaintiff has applied for transfer to NCvC3 for all of the four suits to be heard and decided by the same Judge.

[3]The Plaintiff here is the father of the 1^st Defendant here, and the subject-matter in dispute here relate to assets and shareholdings of one of the several companies which the Plaintiff claims to be family companies and/or interrelated companies.

[4]On 27 April 2023 this Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for transfer to NCvC3 so that this NcvC10 suit can be heard and decided by the same Judge as in the other two pending NCvC3 suits.

[5]Dissatisfied, the Defendant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Factual background

[6]The Plaintiff’s version of cases is that allegedly “this suit, as the other 3 civil actions at the Shah Alam High Court, is a consequence of an ungrateful avaricious and dishonest son trying to deprive his now wheel-chaired Father, of the control of family owned companies and assets therein where the capital for all the companies was the result of earnings by the Plaintiff/Father”.

[7]The Plaintiff’s version has been denied by the 1^st Defendant. According to the 1^st Defendant, the Plaintiff’s affidavit contains scandalous and irrelevant allegations, the Court has no power to transfer a suit from one NCvC court in Shah Alam to another NCvC court in Shah Alam, there is no common issue between this NCvC10 suit and the two NCvC3 suits, and even if there is common issue it is still not proper for transfer of case here.

[8]The question whether or not the Plaintiff’s version is to be accepted by the Court is an issue to be tried at the full trial and not at this stage. At this stage, this Court’s concern is whether there are common issues or questions of fact between this NCvC10 suit and the other two pending NCvC3 suits so as to render it appropriate for them to be heard by the same Judge. For the purpose of determining whether or not there is common issue or questions of fact, this Court will rely on the pleadings in the relevant suits as exhibited to the affidavits filed in respect of this Enclosure 58 application.

1st Issue: Whether the Court has power to transfer a suit from one MCvC court in Shah Alam to another NCvC court in Shah Alam

[9]The Defendants argue that (a) “The power of this High Court to transfer proceedings is conferred by the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, Section 25 (2) read together with Item 12 of the Schedule” (b) “O. 57 r. 1 of the Rules of Court 2012prescribes that a High Court may to transfer a case before it to another High Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.”

[10]Relying on the High Court’s decision in Koh Heng Jin Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Lee Quan Yoong & Anor [2022] 1 LNS 504, which in turn relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd & Anor 2011 MarsdenLR 4788 , the Defendants argue that the High Court has no power to transfer a case from one division of the High Court to another division of the High Court in the same branch or locality. The Defendants also cited the Court of Appeal’s decision in Jaya Sudh