ABDUL WAHAB JUMRAH

Malacca Securities v Loke Yu

Parties

Plaintiff – a licensed stockbrokerDefendant –operated account and use its

services for the share transaction

Issues

Main Action The plaintiff claim the interest due to the share

transaction, however the defendant denied the fact by saying the interest incurred because of the conspiracy usage of the account by the plaintiff and Lim Teck Meng

Then defendant brought a counterclaim pursuant to Order

Issues

2nd Action The defendant filed an application to transfer the case to Kuala

Lumpur because His address in Kuala Lumpur

He works in Kuala Lumpur

Hence, the action will be inconvenience to him

The action should be in KL pursuant to Section 23(1) that statedo (1) Subject to the limitations contained in Article 128 of the Constitution

the High Court shall have jurisdiction to try all civil proceedings where— (a) the cause of action arose; (b) the defendant or one of several defendants resides or has his place of business;

The plaintiff gives an affidavit to reply The cause of action happened in Malacca The witnesses are mostly in Malacca

Judgment

The Court use the definition of local jurisdiction in Section 3 of CJA

Read together with Section 23(1) stated the difference between High Court of Malaya and Sabah Sarawak, affirmed by Gopal Sri Ram in Fung Beng Tiat v Marid Construction

The Court also use the term principal registry where stated the branch courts in registry. It is understood that Ipoh and Penang courts are the branch court of High Court of Malaya. Thus they have concurrent jurisdiction

The result is that a plaintiff is entitled to file an action in any branch of the High Court in Malaya regardless of whether the cause of action arose in another state.

Judgment

However, the Court need to consider in mind that the case should be interpreted in according to the circumstances

In this case the plaintiff's registered address is in Melaka. The defendant opened an account with the plaintiff in Melaka. The defendant conducted his share transactions in Melaka. The amount due on the account is therefore payable in Melaka. If there is to be any dispute on this issue it is resolved by the fact that the

plaintiff's registered office is in Melaka thereby making Melaka the venue for payment of the sum due.

In the circumstances the breach in payment of the sum due occurred in Melaka.

The plaintiff's cause of action therefore arose in Melaka. The plaintiff's case also comes within sub-para. (c) as the facts on which the

action is based occurred in Melaka. Thus the application by the defendant dismissed, and the

appellant is against that order.