JB-24NCvC-260-06/2025
High Court of Malaysia12 Dec 2025
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“on the following grounds: - a) The proceedings commenced in the Singapore State Courts were validly and properly instituted in accordance with Singapore Law. Pursuant to Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Singapore State Courts Act 1970, the Singapore Courts are vested with limited extraterritorial jurisdiction to hear an act”
“ingapore Court and be contrary to principles of international comity and the orderly administration of justice. In the case of Motor Insurer’s Bureau of Singapore v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd [2025] CLJU 1514, the Malaysian Court of Appeal recognized that proceedings properly instituted in Singapore, with leave”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Content
1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI MUAR DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO.: JB-24NCvC-260-06/2025 Dalam Perkara Seksyen 96(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 Dan Dalam Perkara Seksyen 59(2) dan 65(1)(a) Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948 Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan 7 Kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012
1
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 44191-P) 16/01/2026 16:35:59
2
ARIVINTHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM (No. K/P: 930610-08-5509) … PEMOHON-PEMOHON
1
1.
2
2.
3
3.
4
4.
5
VALERIE EPHRAIM PNG MEI XIN … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGEMENT
1
On 19 December 2023, a motor vehicle accident occurred on Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan, Tangkak, Johor. The motor vehicle accident involved a car with the plate number SMU 2834H, owned and driven by the 1st Respondent, and a car with plate number JTL 1006, owned and driven by the 2nd Applicant, which was insured under a policy of motor insurance issued by the 1st Applicant. The other Respondents, being the wife and daughters of the 1st Respondent, were passengers in the vehicle driven by the 1st Respondent.
2
On 6.6.2024, the Respondents, through their Singapore solicitors, Lee Shergill LLP, issued letters of demand to both the Applicants. The letters were sent to the 2nd Applicant and to the 1st Applicant as the insurer. The 1st Applicant acknowledged receipt by email on 6.6.2024 and by letter dated 19.6.2024.
3
Since no settlement was reached, the Respondents served 10- day statutory notices of intention to commence legal proceedings under the Singapore State Courts Practice Directions 2021 on 1.8.2024. The 1st Applicant acknowledged receipt on 1.8.2024.
4
Thereafter, the Respondents filed Originating Claims in the Singapore State Courts, and on 30.6.2025, the Respondents filed applications with supporting affidavits in the Singapore Courts seeking leave to serve originating process out of jurisdiction on the Applicants in Malaysia.
5
By orders dated 1.7.2025, 4.7.2025, and 29.7.2025, the Singapore Courts granted leave to serve the originating processes in Malaysia, which was duly effected.
6
On 12.6.2025, the Applicants filed the present application (OS) seeking inter alia: -
i
A declaration that the cause of action arises from the road traffic accident on 19.12.2023 in Tangkak, Johor.
II
(ii) A declaration that the Malaysian Subordinate Courts, in particular the Magistrates / Sessions Court Muar, have full jurisdiction to hear the Respondent’s claim; and
III
(iii) A declaration that the Applicants are not liable to satisfy any judgment obtained against them in the Courts of Singapore. ISSUES TO BE TRIED
a
Whether Malaysia or Singapore is the appropriate forum (forum convenience) to hear this dispute.
b
Whether the Singapore proceedings were properly instituted and within jurisdiction; and
c
Whether the Applicants declaratory application amounts to a collateral attack on ongoing foreign proceedings. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
7
The Applicants application is dismissed on the following grounds: - a) The proceedings commenced in the Singapore State Courts were validly and properly instituted in accordance with Singapore Law. Pursuant to Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Singapore State Courts Act 1970, the Singapore Courts are vested with limited extraterritorial jurisdiction to hear an action in personam against a foreign defendant. This statutory foundation provides that the Court may assume jurisdiction over a non-resident, such as the 2nd Applicant, where the statutory safeguards are satisfied, and service is duly effected. This statutory jurisdiction is contingent upon the Respondents first satisfying the procedural safeguards imposed by the Singapore Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021) and the State Courts Practice Directions 2021. In particular, Order 8 Rule 1(1) and (2) ROC 2021 requires a claimant seeking to serve originating process out of jurisdiction to show that: -
i
There is a good arguable case that a sufficient nexus exists to Singapore.
II
(ii) There is a serious issue to be tried; and
III
(iii) Singapore is the forum. In the present case, the Respondents satisfied all three requirements. Although the accident occurred in Malaysia, the Respondents, as Singapore residents and citizens, suffered continuing personal injuries, incurred medical expenses, and sustained consequential financial losses in Singapore. The motor vehicle was also repaired in Singapore. These factors establish a sufficient nexus to Singapore. Further, contemporaneous dashcam footage, police report, and medical evidence demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried on negligence. Finally, the residence of the Respondents, the location of their medical treatment, and the availability of their witnesses establish that Singapore is the more convenient forum. In Teo Cher Teck v Goh Suan Hee [2009] 1 SLR(R) 749, the Singapore High Court affirmed that jurisdiction may properly be founded where damage is suffered in Singapore even if the wrongful act occurred abroad. The court further emphasized that in road accident cases, greater weight is given to the convenience of the injured plaintiff and his medical witnesses, and where the factors are evenly balanced, the defendant fails to discharge the burden of showing Malaysia is the more appropriate forum. Having been so satisfied, the Singapore Courts granted leave for service out of jurisdiction. b) Since the Respondents convinced the Singapore Court that Singapore is the forum convenience to hear the matter, the Applicants should challenge the matter in the Singapore Court as to why Malaysia is considered the more appropriate forum. Otherwise, it will lead to undermining the jurisdiction of the Singapore Court and be contrary to principles of international comity and the orderly administration of justice. In the case of Motor Insurer’s Bureau of Singapore v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd [2025] CLJU 1514, the Malaysian Court of Appeal recognized that proceedings properly instituted in Singapore, with leave to serve out of jurisdiction, must be respected by Malaysian courts. The Court emphasized that Malaysian courts should not entertain attempts to frustrate or pre-empt foreign proceedings that are bona fide and within jurisdiction. c) The Applicants here were kept fully aware of all material steps in the Singapore proceedings. Despite having full knowledge and ample opportunity, the Applicants did not file a Notice of intention to Contest Jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 6, nor a Defence contesting jurisdiction under Oder 6 Rule 7 ROC 2021 within the prescribed timelines. Under Singapore law, such failure constitutes submission to jurisdiction by conduct. This position is supported by the High Court’s decision in PT Sandipala Arthaputra v. Muehlbauer Technologies Sdn Bhd [2021] 9 CLJ 484, where it was held that a defendant who, after being duly served, takes no step including failing to file an appearance or challenge jurisdiction, may be regarded as having passively submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction. d) The relief sought by the Applicants is a declaration that they are not liable to satisfy any judgment obtained against them in Singapore. This amounts to inviting the Malaysian court to pronounce in advance on the validity and enforceability of a foreign court’s judgment before that judgment has even been determined. The effect of granting such relief would be to undermine and interfere with the jurisdiction and authority of the Singapore courts, which have already seized jurisdiction after considering the necessary procedural safeguards under Order 8 of the Singapore ROC 2021. The High Court in Mohd Syed bin Syed Jamaludin & Ors v MMIP Services Sdn Bhd & Ors [2023] 7 MLJ 80, dismissed a similar attempt by Malaysian defendants to obtain declarations insulating themselves from liability in ongoing Singapore proceedings. The Court held that such declaratory relief amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on foreign proceedings and emphasized that issues of jurisdiction and forum are to be raised, if at all, in the Singapore court itself, which view this court strongly agrees with.
8
Premised on the above considerations, the Applicants Originating Summons is dismissed with costs of RM 5,000.00 awarded to the Respondents. Dated 12th December 2025 t.t. KALYANA KUMAR A/L SOCKALINGAM JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MUAR JOHORE DARUL TA’ZIM For the Applicants : Ganesarajah A/L Nadarajah Messrs Ganes & Partners For the Respondents :
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.