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

Case Significance

Illustrates the forum non conveniens analysis under Order 57 of the Rules of Court 2012 in a debt claim: the place where payment was due and the breach occurred can anchor jurisdiction, and generalised assertions of witness inconvenience will not displace the plaintiff's chosen forum, especially given remote-hearing options.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application to transfer a debt-recovery suit from Kuala Lumpur to the High Court at Kuantan, and applies the doctrine of forum non conveniens under Order 57 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. In the main suit, the plaintiff, a supplier trading under a registered business name, had provided transportation services and leased lorries and excavators to the first defendant, Blackstone Mining Sdn Bhd, for mining and ore-processing operations in Pahang between 2014 and 2019. The second defendant, a foreign national who was the sole shareholder and director of the first defendant, personally guaranteed payment under a debt agreement in which the defendants acknowledged a total outstanding sum of RM4,330,861.57 and promised to settle it, with interest at 10% per annum on delay. The debt remained unpaid, and the plaintiff claimed judgment against both defendants jointly and severally. The defendants applied to transfer the suit to Kuantan, arguing that the services were rendered in Pahang, that they operated their business there and that their witnesses were based in Kuantan. The court weighed the provisos in Order 57 rule 4 and held that the crux of the case was the debt and the breach — the failure to pay, which occurred in Kuala Lumpur where the creditor was to be paid — so the closest nexus was Kuala Lumpur. It held that the defendants had failed to particularise the inconvenience to their witnesses, that modern technology such as video-conferencing and Order 33A mitigated any logistical difficulty, that there were no parallel proceedings, and that the plaintiff's choice of forum had not been shown to be oppressive. The court noted the burden lay on the applicants for transfer to show that the alternative forum was clearly more appropriate, and that although the second defendant's own affidavit gave conflicting addresses — one in Kuantan and one in Kuala Lumpur — and the first defendant operated in Kuantan, none of this displaced the fact that the debt and its non-payment lay at the heart of the case. The court dismissed the transfer application with costs in the cause, rendering the associated request for an extension of time to file the defence academic.