Transfer of civil proceedings permitted under Rules of Court 2012 if trial can be more conveniently or fairly conducted in another court, considering factors like location and parties' residence.

[1]This is an application by the Defendant under Order 2 Rule, Order 3 Rule 5, Order 57 Rule 1 and Rule 2 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 to transfer this proceeding to the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya, in the state of Selangor. The relevant cause papers for this application are:

a)Writ of Summons and Statement of Claims dated 4.8.2023 (“Enclosure 1 and 2”);

b)Statement of Defence dated 25.8.2023 (“Enclosure 5”);

c)Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claims dated 8.9.2023 (“Enclosure 6 and 7”);

d)Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim dated

e)10.2023 (“Enclosure 12”);

f)Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to Amended Counter Claim dated 31.10.2023 (“Enclosure 14”);

g)Notice of Application dated 25.04.2024 (“Enclosure 20”);

h)Affidavit In Support of the application affirmed by Khoay Ghee Teong dated 24.4.2024 (“Enclosure 21”);

i)Plaintiffs Affidavit In Reply affirmed by Teh Chai Seng dated

j)05.2024 (“Enclosure 22”); and

k)Defendant’s Affidavit In Reply affirmed by Khoay Ghee Teong dated 30.05.2024 (“Enclosure 23”).

Facts of the Case

[2]Both Plaintiffs are Malaysian who resided at No. 29, Jalan Air Pasang, Air Panas, Setapak 53200 Kuala Lumpur whereas the Defendant is a private limited company having its registered address at Wisma Tanco, No. 1, Jalan Bandar 1, Pusat Bandar Puchong, 47160, Puchong, Selangor.

[3]The Defendant at all material times is a property developer and had developed a mixed development known as “SPLASH PARK” on a piece of land held under GRN 242590 Lot 5930 GRN 242591 Lot 5931, Pekan Sungai Menyala, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan which includes among others a water amusement park, hotels, service suits, restaurants and food bazaar.

[4]On 09.10.2014 the Plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with the Defendant to purchase parcel B2-9-3 Splash Park Suites (the said unit). According to clause 21.01 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 09.10.2014, the delivery of vacant possession of the said units should be handed by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs on 08.10.2018. However, the delivery of Vacant Possession was only handed to the Plaintiffs on 30.11.2022. The Plaintiffs then filed an action via this civil suit for Liquidated Damages for late delivery of vacant possession.

The Application

[5]The Defendant filed this application via enclosure 20 under Order 2 Rule, Order 3 Rule 5, Order 57 Rule 1 and Rule 2 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 to transfer this proceeding to the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya, in the state of Selangor for the reasons stated below :

a)The cause of actions by the Plaintiffs are based on the Sale and Purchase Agreement;

b)The Defendant’s registered address is in Selangor;

c)This proceeding should be initiated in Petaling Jaya, Selangor;

d)Forum of Convenience is in Petaling Jaya, Selangor; and

e)The transfer to the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya will save parties costs and time.

Analysis of The Case and The Court Findings

[6]Before proceeding to the analysis of the application. It is pertinent to state that applications to transfer proceedings from one court to another is being governed by Order 57 Rule 1 of the Rules Of Court 2012. Order 57 Rule 1(1) provides as follows:

1. Transfer of proceedings to another Court (O. 57 r. 1)

(1) Where the Judge of the High Court or a Judge of the Sessions Court or a Magistrate is satisfied that any proceedings in that Court can be more conveniently or fairly tried in some other Court of coordinate jurisdiction, he may on application by any party, order the proceedings to be transferred to the other Court.

[7]Order 57 Rule 1 (4) further states that:

(4) Before making any order to transfer any proceedings from-

(a)the High C