Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer of proceedings

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2026

YONG GEK HONG LIM YEAN CHAI

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-247-09/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-247-09/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the cause of action accrued in Johor Bahru because the settlement agreements were drafted, signed and stamped there, the plaintiff resides there and payments were to be made there; material facts and primary witnesses are in Johor Bahru, the incidents in Selangor are not material to the cause of action, and therefore the transfer application lacked merit under Order 57 and relevant statutes.
5 Jan 2026

1. ) CHER GUAN CHUN 2. ) CHER INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD LIM CHAN HON

Citation

BA-23CY-19-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-19-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to transfer was allowed because the court found, on the authorities and recent trends, that the plaintiffs' claimed quantum was unlikely to require High Court jurisdiction; multiple publications could be assessed by a rolled-up award; filing in the High Court where the sub-court likely has jurisdiction risks abuse of process; accordingly the discretion under Order 57 r 1 must be exercised to transfer the matter to the Sessions Court; costs were fixed at RM5,000.
8 Dec 2025

CARECOOL HVAC REFRIGERATION & ENGINEERING CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (M) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-51-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-51-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the cause of action arose in Johor Bahru because payment was contractually to be made to the plaintiff's bank account there; the claim is a straightforward breach of contract not a construction matter; the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving material facts about witnesses or documents showing Sepang is the proper venue; accordingly the transfer application was dismissed.
28 Oct 2025

WELTON BUILDER SDN BHD DATO' SRI TEE YAM

Citation

JA-22NCvC-34-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-34-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to transfer is dismissed because the suits do not share a common cause of action, the parties are legally distinct, the factual overlap is incidental, there is no real risk of inconsistent findings, the Defendant failed to prove the RM30 million was part of the JVA or to establish grounds to pierce the corporate veil, and the balance of convenience and ends of justice favour the matter remaining in Johor Bahru.
17 Oct 2025

YEO GEOK HUAT berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya GH YEO ENTERPRISE 1. ) BLACKSTONE MINING SDN. BHD. 2. ) SHI XIAO JIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-470-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-470-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The transfer application was dismissed because the closest nexus of the cause of action (failure to pay an acknowledged debt) was Kuala Lumpur where the Plaintiff operates and where payment was due; the Defendants failed to provide particulars demonstrating a stronger connection to Kuantan or material on the merits to shift the burden; inconvenience to witnesses/documents did not outweigh the Plaintiff’s choice of forum given technological means and absence of parallel proceedings, therefore Order 57 factors favored maintaining the suit in Kuala Lumpur.
14 Oct 2025

CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD 1. ) KERK HAN MENG 2. ) SIM CHIN HU

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1147-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1147-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal in part and ordered transfer of Suit 786 to the High Court hearing OS 547 because the allegations of fraud and misappropriation in Suit 786 were directly relevant to the oppression claim in OS 547, creating common issues that justified transfer/consolidation to avoid inconsistent findings and duplication; intra-High Court transfers are permissible where ancillary to consolidation or where Order 57 r.1(1) and Order 4 r.1 apply; delay and alleged tactical motive did not outweigh the need to determine the common issues, particularly given subsequent interlocutory ste…
8 Jul 2025

GOW JIA LE AIA BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCC-46-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-46-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the Defendant to withdraw the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and awarded costs to the Plaintiff because the withdrawal effectively addressed the Plaintiff's strike‑out application; the court dismissed the application to consolidate the suits and to transfer them to the Kuala Lumpur High Court because the Defendant failed to demonstrate common questions of law or fact of sufficient importance (given distinct evidence required from each plaintiff regarding individual sales, commissions and alleged fraud), and consolidation/transfer would risk mixing evidence and…
9 May 2025

GOW JIA LE AIA BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCC-46-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-46-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Withdrawal of the ASDCC was allowed because the Defendant elected not to pursue the amended pleading and no prejudice was shown given the pre-trial stage, but costs were ordered against the Defendant; the application to consolidate and transfer to the KL High Court was dismissed because the Defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient common questions of law or fact (notably the conspiracy allegations lacked pleaded facts and named parties) and consolidation would risk jumbling distinct evidence of each plaintiff and produce prejudice or inconsistent outcomes.
15 Nov 2024

FHC Mining Sdn Bhd 1. ) Razali bin Yusof 2. ) Penghuni-penghuni GRN 18668 Lot 1909, Mukim Hulu Jabur, Daerah Kemaman, Negeri Terengganu

Citation

CA-B52NCvC-9-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-B52NCvC-9-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to transfer was allowed because the court was satisfied under Order 57(4) that the subject matter (disputed land), defendants' residence/place of business, material witnesses and practical considerations for execution/enforcement are located in Kemaman, making Sessions Court Kemaman the more appropriate forum; the matter does not invoke exclusive High Court land jurisdiction and transfer is in the interest of justice and convenience, with costs to follow in the cause.
27 Aug 2024

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Tan Ken Meng 2. ) Wong Tee Ming 1. ) TNL Plastic Manufacturer Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Lim Shen Lee

Citation

BA-28NCC-96-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-28NCC-96-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer was denied because the alleged principal place of business was no longer operational and under liquidation/foreclosure, all relevant professionals were based in Petaling Jaya making Shah Alam more convenient, respondents had submitted to Shah Alam jurisdiction by participation, transfer would cause delay and risk enabling forum shopping; accordingly retention in Shah Alam best served convenience, justice and efficiency.