WEALTH GROUP HOLDING LIMITED v YEASHIN CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Case Significance

Instructive on the multi-factor approach under Order 57 rule 1(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 23(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to transferring a suit between High Courts of coordinate jurisdiction, where no single connecting factor is decisive.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application to transfer a suit from one High Court to another under section 23(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Order 57 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff, Wealth Group Holding Limited, a property-marketing company incorporated in Hong Kong and operating as a global property agent, had sued the defendant, Yeashin Construction Sdn Bhd, a developer of a project in Melaka, in the High Court at Shah Alam. The defendant applied to stay the proceedings and transfer the case to the High Court at Melaka, contending that the action was not within the local jurisdiction of the Shah Alam court or that it was not the appropriate forum, that the cause of action and material facts had arisen in Melaka, that the defendant and its witnesses were in Melaka, and that the case could be tried more fairly and conveniently there. The plaintiff opposed the application. The dispute arose from an agency agreement of April 2019 by which the defendant appointed the plaintiff as property agent to sell condominium units, and a bulk sale-and-purchase agreement of July 2019, under which the plaintiff had paid a deposit of RM150,000 to the defendant's bank account. The court, per Rozi binti Bainon JC, dismissed the application. It set out the framework of Order 57 rule 1(4), under which the court weighs the various factors listed in paragraphs (A) to (E) without treating any single factor as prevailing over the others, applying Pose Ti Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu. Weighing all the factors, and giving significance to the fact that the material facts concerning the bank payment arrangements for commission had taken place in Selangor, the court found the grounds relied on for a transfer to be unsustainable and not proved, and held that the proceedings should remain in the High Court at Shah Alam; with the refusal of the transfer, the accompanying stay was also refused, with costs in the cause. The judgment is instructive on the multi-factor approach to transferring a suit between High Courts of coordinate jurisdiction.