Michell LIM Huei Sun v Yew Chun Jie (BA-23NCvC-10-02/2026)

This is the Court's decision in respect of Enclosure 9, an application by the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants pursuant to Order 57 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012") for an order that the present proceedings be transferred from the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam to the High Court of Malaya at Penang.

The Applicants further seek consequential orders and costs.

Having considered the pleadings, affidavits, written submissions and authorities relied upon by parties, this Court allows the application. 22/06/2026 11:42:56 BA-23NCvC-10-02/2026 Kand. 37 Background

The Plaintiff commenced this action by Writ and Statement of Claim alleging that the Defendants published and republished defamatory statements through various social media platforms including Rednote, Instagram and Facebook.

According to the Plaintiff, the publications conveyed that she had acted selfishly, dishonestly and improperly in connection with humanitarian activities associated with the Hat Yai flood rescue operation.

The Plaintiff contends that the publications caused substantial injury to her personal and professional reputation and seeks damages together with injunctive relief and ancillary remedies.

The Defendants deny liability and have filed their respective Defences. Among the matters pleaded are denial of defamatory meaning, denial of reference to the Plaintiff, justification, fair comment, qualified privilege and absence of malice.

Before the substantive issues may be determined, the Applicants seek the transfer of the proceedings to Penang. Plaintiff's Case

Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the present dispute concerns publications disseminated through the internet.

Such publications are inherently borderless and accessible throughout Malaysia and beyond. Reliance is placed on authorities including Lim Guan Eng v FZ Sdn Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 1 and Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; [2002] HCA 56.

It is argued that damage to reputation may occur wherever publications are downloaded and comprehended. The Plaintiff further submits that Shah Alam possesses concurrent jurisdiction.

It is contended that inconvenience alone does not justify transfer. The Plaintiff argues that modern technology and remote hearing facilities substantially reduce any inconvenience to witnesses.

It is also submitted that transfer would prejudice the Plaintiff and increase litigation costs. The Plaintiff disputes many factual allegations advanced by the Defendants concerning the underlying events.

The Plaintiff specifically pleads that she was not physically present in Hat Yai during the material period and disputes various allegations associated with the rescue operation. Defendants' Case

The Applicants contend that Penang constitutes the more appropriate forum.

They submit that several Applicants reside or work in Penang and Kedah.

They further submit that individuals who may potentially become material witnesses are substantially connected with the northern region.

The Applicants contend that the underlying factual controversies associated with the present dispute similarly bear substantial connections with that region.

It is argued that Shah Alam possesses no particularly significant factual nexus with the dispute.

The Applicants further submit that repeated attendance in Shah Alam would impose unnecessary hardship upon parties and witnesses.

Reliance is placed upon authorities including American Express Bank Ltd v Mohamed Toufic Al-Ozeir [1995] 1 MLJ 160, Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v Raveentharan Subramaniam [2021] 1 CLJ 63, Qlivia Hen Chye Chin v Sachaway Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 LNS 194 and Low Long Yoong v Low Kok Choon [2014] 2 MLJ 725. Applicable Law

The application is brought pursuant to Order 57 Rule 1 ROC 2012.

The Court may order a transfer whenever it appears expedient for the ends of justice.

The discretion is judicial and must be exercised having regard to established principles.

Relevant considerations include convenience of parties, convenience of witnesses, expense, location of evidence, practical administration of justice and the interests of justice.

The Court accepts that the High Court at Shah Alam possesses jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The existence of jurisdiction, however, does not conclude the matter. Order 57 itself recognises that a competent proceeding may nevertheless be transferred where justice requires.

The Plaintiff's choice of forum deserves considerable respect. However, the Plaintiff's choice cannot be absolute. The Court must balance the interests of all parties. Internet Publications

The Court accepts the Plaintiff's submission that internet publications possess unique characteristics.

Publications made through social media transcend geographical boundaries. Reputational damage may occur wherever such publications are accessed.

The Court accepts the reasoning in Lim Guan Eng and Dow Jones.

Nevertheless, the Court is unable to accept that internet accessibility alone should determine every transfer application.

If that proposition were accepted, any Registry within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya could potentially become an equally appropriate forum for every internet defamation action.

Such an approach would significantly reduce the practical operation of Order 57 ROC 2012.

Internet accessibility therefore constitutes an important factor but not the sole determining factor. Underlying Factual Controversies

The Court has carefully examined the pleadings. It is apparent that the present dispute extends beyond the mere publication of social media posts.

The parties have advanced competing factual narratives concerning matters associated with the Hat Yai flood rescue operation and related events.

The Plaintiff disputes many of those allegations. The Defendants advance a different factual account.

This Court expresses no opinion whatsoever regarding the correctness of either version. The Court is not conducting a mini trial.

The Court makes no finding regarding the truth or falsity of the alleged defamatory publications.

The Court similarly makes no finding regarding the pleaded defences of justification, fair comment, qualified privilege or malice.

Those matters remain for determination at trial. Nevertheless, the existence of those factual disputes suggests that evidence from persons connected with those events may become material during the trial of the action.

The Court is entitled to consider the practical location of such potential witnesses for the limited purpose of the present application. Witnesses and Practical Administration

The affidavit evidence indicates that several Applicants possess substantial connections with Penang and Kedah.

The material before the Court further indicates that certain individuals who may potentially become witnesses are similarly connected with that region.

The Court accepts that modern technology has reduced inconvenience in litigation. Video conferencing and remote hearings are now common.

However, such developments do not altogether eliminate the practical significance of witness attendance.

Defamation actions may involve issues of credibility and context. Witnesses may require extensive examination and cross-examination.

The practical administration of justice therefore remains an important consideration. Balance of Convenience

The Court must balance competing considerations.

Transfer will inconvenience the Plaintiff. Retention in Shah Alam will inconvenience the Applicants and potential witnesses connected with the northern region.

No single factor is decisive. The Court must evaluate the cumulative effect of all relevant circumstances.

Those circumstances include:

(a) the Plaintiff's choice of forum;

(b) concurrent jurisdiction;

(c) the borderless nature of internet publications;

(d) the location of parties;

(e) the apparent location of potential witnesses;

(f) practical litigation management;

(g) the interests of justice.

Having balanced those considerations, the Court is satisfied that the cumulative factors favour transfer.

Apart from the Plaintiff's election to commence proceedings in Shah Alam and the nationwide accessibility of the alleged publications, the material presently before the Court does not disclose any particularly significant factual connection between the substantive dispute and Shah Alam.

Conversely, the affidavit evidence discloses substantial practical connections with Penang and Kedah.

The Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience favours Penang. Findings

The affidavit evidence demonstrates substantial practical connections between the dispute and Penang and Kedah.

The location of potential witnesses and the practical administration of justice favour Penang.

This decision should not be construed as expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the Plaintiff's claim or the Defendants' substantive defences.

Those issues remain entirely open for determination at trial. Decision

Having considered the pleadings, affidavits, submissions and authorities cited by parties, this Court is satisfied that the Applicants have demonstrated that the High Court of Malaya at Penang constitutes the more appropriate forum for the continuation of these proceedings.

The Plaintiff's submissions concerning concurrent jurisdiction and the borderless nature of internet publications are accepted as correct statements of law.

However, those considerations are outweighed by the cumulative practical considerations arising from the location of parties, the apparent location of potential witnesses and the practical administration of justice.

The Court is therefore satisfied that the interests of justice favour the transfer sought. Order

Enclosure 9 is allowed.

Civil Suit No. BA-23NCVC-10-02/2026 is hereby transferred from the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam to the High Court of Malaya at Penang.

Costs RM3000 of this application are awarded to the Applicants. Dated this 19th June 2026 -sgd- ………………………………….. Asmah binti Musa Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Counsel for Plaintiff : Ms. Hermione Leong Dam & MOB for D4 Messrs Lavinia, Dell Akbar, Tee & Partners Counsel for D1,D2 D5-D8 : Ms. Tan Yi Jie Messrs R. Nethaji Rayer & Co Counsel for D3 : Ms. Madhuri Kaur Messrs. Kamarudin & Partners