Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Venue transfer

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2024

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) TAN KEN MENG 2. ) WONG TEE MING 1. ) HSL AUTO ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) LIM SHEN LEE

Citation

BA-28NCC-100-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-28NCC-100-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer was refused because the purported principal business premises in Negeri Sembilan were no longer operational and under liquidation/foreclosure, key professionals and proposed liquidators are based in Petaling Jaya making Shah Alam more convenient, respondents had submitted to Shah Alam's jurisdiction by participating in hearings, the virtual/affidavit nature of winding-up reduces the importance of physical forum, and transfer would likely cause delay and risk forum shopping.
20 Mar 2024

DATO' NORUZZAMAN BIN CHE IDRIS AHMAD FADZIL BIN MUSA

Citation

BA-23CY-12-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-12-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice and held that the defamation proceedings should remain and be heard at the Shah Alam High Court; accordingly the Defendant's application to transfer to Pulau Pinang was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
29 Sept 2022

DR ZAKIR ABDUL KARIM NAIK CHARLES ANTHONY SANTIAGO

Citation

WA-23CY-65-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-65-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the defendant's transfer applications mala fide and an abuse of process aimed at delaying proceedings and forum shopping, and accordingly dismissed the applications and ordered costs of RM1,000 for each application.
23 Jul 2020

DR ZAKIR ABDUL KARIM NAIK (no. mtpr : 651018-75-5049) RAVEENTHARAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM (no. k/p : 600316-07-5631)

Citation

WA-23CY-69-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-69-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer was ordered because the defendant satisfied at least one s.23(1) CJA criterion (residence/place of business and location of publication in Penang), the defendant's witnesses and evidential nexus are in Penang, and the plaintiff's affidavit failed to provide probative evidence that the cause arose exclusively in Putrajaya; convenience and legislative intent favour trial in Penang under Order 57 r.1(4).

Malaysia Case Law

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) TAN KEN MENG 2. ) WONG TEE MING 1. ) HSL AUTO ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) LIM SHEN LEE

DATO' NORUZZAMAN BIN CHE IDRIS AHMAD FADZIL BIN MUSA

DR ZAKIR ABDUL KARIM NAIK CHARLES ANTHONY SANTIAGO

DR ZAKIR ABDUL KARIM NAIK (no. mtpr : 651018-75-5049) RAVEENTHARAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM (no. k/p : 600316-07-5631)