JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

By way of enclosure one (1), the applicant/defendant sought to transfer the proceedings presently pending in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court vide Summons No: 7-52-15083-2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "said suit") to the Kuala Lumpur High Court on the ground that the applicant/defendant's counterclaim in the said suit may exceed the monetary limit of RM250,000 prescribed to the Sessions Court.

The Respondent/Plaintiff's Claim In The Said Suit

The said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court claiming for the sum of RM200,000. The respondent/plaintiff's claim was allegedly for the balance of payment for a television commercial advertisement commissioned by the applicant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.

The Defence And The Counterclaim Of The Applicant/Defendant

The applicant/defendant filed a defence and counterclaim dated 15 January 2003 in the said suit and, within a narrow compass, the applicant/defendant's defence and counterclaim may be stated as follows:

(1) it had been represented by the respondent/plaintiff to the applicant/defendant that the former was able to produce and complete the television commercial advertisement in accordance with the specifications and quality required by the applicant/defendant within three (3) weeks to enable the applicant/defendant to launch the product as scheduled;

(2) based on these representations made by the respondent/plaintiff to the applicant/defendant, the applicant/defendant entered into an agreement with the respondent/plaintiff on 19 May 2000 for the respondent/plaintiff to produce and complete the television commercial advertisement subject to the specifications provided by the applicant/defendant in accordance to the latter's requirements and to obtain the usual approvals before it was aired;

(3) the total costs for the production and completion of the television commercial advertisement was to be in the sum of RM400,000;

(4) it had been verbally agreed by the parties that the respondent/plaintiff would produce and complete the television commercial advertisement within three (3) weeks to enable the applicant/defendant to launch the service provider, TIMENet, as scheduled;

(5) subsequently, the applicant/defendant had on 30 May 2000 made payment of RM200,000 being the 50% of the total payment of the television commercial advertisement to the respondent/plaintiff;

(6) it was, and it is still, the normal practice in the advertisement industry that the balance of 50% payment would only be paid after the client was satisfied with the final product;

(7) the respondent/plaintiff failed to produce the television commercial advertisement as agreed and based on what had been envisaged and requested by the applicant/defendant;

(8) the television commercial advertisement produced by the respondent/plaintiff was not in accordance with the specifications as requested by the applicant/defendant and it was substantially not of the quality required by the applicant/defendant;

(9) The respondent/plaintiff has not within three (3) weeks or until to date delivered to the applicant/defendant the final product of the television commercial advertisement as required;

(10) the respondent/plaintiff was not ready, nor able nor willing to deliver the television commercial advertisement pursuant to the agreement between the parties and so the respondent/plaintiff had repudiated the said agreement and the applicant/defendant was entitled to elect to accept the said repudiation and to treat the said agreement as coming to an end and therefore the applicant/defendant refused to make further payment to the respondent/plaintiff;

(11) as a result thereto, the launch of the product had to be postponed for nearly three (3) months; and

(12) the applicant/defendant in its counterclaim claimed for the return of the sum of RM200,000 which was already paid to the respondent/plaintiff and the applicant/defendant was also claimin