1. ) LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD 2. ) ARIVINTHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM v 1. ) PNG SOO HOCK FRANKIE 2. ) TAN POH NOI SALLY 3. ) VERNICE EPHRAIM PNG MEI XUAN 4. ) VANEESA EPHRAIM PNG MEI LING 5. ) VALERIE EPHRAIM PNG MEI XIN

Case Significance

Illustrates the Malaysian courts' reluctance to grant declaratory relief that would undercut foreign proceedings already properly instituted, treating such an application as an impermissible collateral attack and directing that forum and jurisdiction be contested in the foreign court that has seised jurisdiction.

This High Court decision at Muar concerns a conflict-of-laws question about the appropriate forum for a cross-border motor accident claim. A collision occurred on the North-South Expressway at Tangkak, Johor, in December 2023 between a car owned and driven by the first respondent and a car driven by the second applicant and insured by the first applicant, Liberty General Insurance Berhad. The respondents, who are resident in and citizens of Singapore, issued letters of demand, served statutory notices under the Singapore State Courts practice directions, and then commenced originating claims in the Singapore State Courts, obtaining leave to serve the originating process out of jurisdiction on the applicants in Malaysia. In response the applicants filed an originating summons in Malaysia seeking, among other things, a declaration about where the cause of action arising from the accident should be litigated. The court refused the relief. It held that the Singapore proceedings had been properly instituted and were within the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts, which had already seised jurisdiction after applying the procedural safeguards of their own rules. To grant the declarations sought would, in effect, pre-empt and interfere with the authority of the Singapore courts and amount to an impermissible collateral attack on ongoing foreign proceedings. Following the High Court's decision in Mohd Syed bin Syed Jamaludin v MMIP Services, which had dismissed a similar attempt by Malaysian defendants to insulate themselves from liability in Singapore proceedings, the court held that any challenge to jurisdiction or forum had to be raised in the Singapore court itself. It dismissed the originating summons with costs of RM5,000 to the respondents. The court was careful to note that it was not deciding the merits of the accident claim, only that the question of which forum should hear it belonged to the court first seised, so that a parallel Malaysian declaration would improperly cut across that process. The judgment illustrates the reluctance of the Malaysian courts to grant declaratory relief that would undercut foreign proceedings already properly on foot.