1.Vide an Originating Summons, the Plaintiff applied to transfer Summons No. 52-14848-2001 from the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court to the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Background

2. The Defendants, Lee Chao Yong and Tan Chee Kuan, in this Originating Summons were the plaintiffs in the Sessions Court case. They had filed a claim against the Plaintiff, Chin Seak Cheng, who was the defendant in the Sessions Court case, for the return of a friendly loan and claimed a sum of RM75,000.00. The Plaintiff filed her Defence denying any friendly loan and instead counterclaimed for the sum of RM388,140.99 being the balance of the purchase price in respect of a Ferrari car that was sold to the 1st plaintiff. The Plaintiff has now applied to transfer Sessions Court Summons No. 52-14848-2010 to the High Court as her counterclaim against the Defendants in that case would now exceed the civil jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

The Plaintiffs Application

3. The Plaintiffs application is premised on the fact that the amount of her counterclaim in the Sessions Court would exceed the civil jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. The main thrust of her concern is that if her application for transfer is dismissed, she would only be able to recover a maximum of RM250,000.00 in the event that she is successful in her counterclaim.

The Defendants Position

4. In opposing the Plaintiffs application, the Defendants contend that the application is both premature as well as misconceived as the Plaintiff had failed to prove that all the pre-requisites in sections 65 and 66 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 had been fulfilled. The Defendants also contend that the application for transfer is intended to protract the hearing of the Defendants suit against the Plaintiff in the Session Court as the case which was initially fixed for hearing on 25.4.2011 had now been adjourned to 6.5.2011. The Defendants also alleged that the Plaintiffs application is but a mala fide attempt to deliberately file a "baseless high value claim" which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and then to seek a transfer of the case.

The Law

5.Section 65 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 provides as follows:

"(1) Subject to the limitations contained in this Act, a Sessions Court shall have:

(a) unlimited jurisdiction to try all actions and suits of a civil nature in respect of motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress; and

(b) Jurisdiction to try all other actions and suits of a civil nature where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject-matter does not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit.

(2) (Repealed)

(3) When the parties to an action or suit which, if the amount in dispute or value of the subject-matter thereof did not exceed the limit of the jurisdiction, would be cognizable by a Sessions Court, have entered into an agreement in writing that the Sessions Court shall have jurisdiction try the action or suit, the Sessions Court shall have jurisdiction to try the same, although the amount of the subject-matter thereof may exceed the value limit of jurisdiction".

6.Section 66 of the Subordinate Courts act 1948 states as follows:

(1) Where in any action or suit of a civil nature before a Sessions any defence or counterclaim of the defendant involves matters beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, the defence or matter shall not affect the competence or the duty of the Sessions Court to dispose of the whole matter in controversy, so far as relates to the demand of the plaintiff and any defence thereto, but no relief exceeding that which the Court has jurisdiction to award shall be given to the defendant upon the counterclaim.

(2) In any such case the High Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of any party, order that the action or suit be transferred to the High Court, and the action or suit shall then be entered in the cause book or register of civil suits of the High Court, and proceeded with as if the action or suit had been o