Nooraini binti Mahendy Mohamad v Dr Venu Gopal A/l M K Pillai (WA-22NCvC-200-04/2023)

This judgment deals with a short point but it’s an important jurisdictional point. The point being whether a litigant is entitled as of right to file a suit in the High Court when the quantum claimed falls within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

The Writ of Summons for this suit was fixed before me on 20-10-2023 for Pre-Trial Case Management (PTCM). I heard counsel and adjourned the PTCM to 20-11-2023 as counsel for the plaintiff Ms Ahimsya Karunananthan has informed me that parties were settling the suit; and further that she will research for cases to show that her client’s claim is above RM 1 million to justify filing in the High Court.

At the continued PTCM on 20-11-2023 the plaintiff’s learned counsel cannot produce any authority to support her contention that the injuries in question in this suit exceeds RM 1 million. On the contrary, the defendants’ counsel says her research shows the estimated quantum for general damages is about RM 25,000.

I suggested to plaintiff’s counsel to transfer the suit to the Sessions Court. Such an order for transfer was indeed made in Beh Chew Tai & Yang Lain v DC & A Developments Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1889 HC, by Azimah Omar J.

The plaintiff’s counsel refused to agree to the suit to be transferred to the Session Court for trial. I therefore struck out the suit with cost in the cause and with liberty to file afresh so as not to prejudice the plaintiff.

The plaintiff can file a fresh suit at the Sessions Court. But, instead the plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against my order.

These are my Grounds of Decision.

The plaintiff is a patient of the two defendants who are dentists. The plaintiff’s claim is for alleged injuries and pain arising from an alleged dental negligence due to an alleged negligent extraction of one tooth. [See Statement of Claim paragraphs 21 - 25].

The plaintiff is seeking damages, special damages of RM 13,587, interest and costs.

The defendants deny the claim.

The sole issue before me is whether the plaintiff is entitled as of right to litigate in the High Court when the quantum claimed falls within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. My analysis The law on the monetary jurisdictions of the Courts

The Sessions Court’s jurisdiction was increased from RM 250,000 to RM 1 million under the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010. The Sessions Court was also given powers to grant an injunction and make a declaration in respect of any action that falls within its jurisdiction. [See Koh Kien Hooi & Ors v Kepong Industrial Park Sdn Bhd [2022] 12 MLJ 440; [2022] 7 253 CLJ; [2022] MLRHU 1095 Mohd Arief JC at [11].

Section 65 of the Subordinate Courts Act reads as follows-Section 65. Civil jurisdiction of Sessions Courts.

Subject to the limitations contained in this Act, a Sessions Court shall have-

unlimited jurisdiction to try all actions and suits of a civil nature in respect of motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress;

jurisdiction to try all other actions and suits of a civil nature where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter does not exceed one million ringgit; and

without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b), jurisdiction to try all actions and suits of a civil nature for the specific performance or rescission of contracts or for cancellation or rectification of instruments, within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. [Emphasis added] A High Court has inherent power to transfer a suit filed in the High Court to the Sessions Court or strike out the suit if it falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court [14] In my view, the High Court has inherent power to transfer a suit filed in the High Court to the Sessions Court or strike out the suit if it falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. [15] The Court of Appeal in Mohd Rafizi bin Ramli v Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor [2019] 6 MLJ 587; [2020] 1 CLJ 498 said : [7] The High Court in all defamation action should at the case management stage itself direct the matter to be transferred to the sub-courts, if the quantum on the subject matter of dispute will be within subordinate court limit. (See O 57 of the Rules of Court 2012). Abusing High Court process in not filing matters in the sub-courts, when the sub-court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter must be taken by the High Court seriously. Trial courts should warn counsels that costs order may be made against counsel personally if ultimately the courts’ jurisdiction has been abused. [Emphasis added] [16] An order for transfer was made in Beh Chew Tai & Yang Lain v DC & A Developments Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 LNS 547 HC, [2020] MLJU 2141; [2023] CLJU 547; [17] Azimah Omar J in Beh Chew Tai said - [36] Dalam menjawab hujahan peguam Defendan yang menghujahkan bahawa Mahkamah ini tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk memindahkan kes ini ke Mahkamah Seyen kerana tidak ada permohonan dibuat menurut Aturan 57 Kaedah 1(2) KKM 2012. [37] Jawapan Mahkamah ini mudah. Perintah yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah ini ini bukanlah pemindahan yang berdasarkan permohonan pihak-pihak, tetapi berdasarkan persoalan undang-undang dan kedudukan undang-undang. Dalam perkara soalan undang-undang, Mahkamah ini mempunyai kuasa yang tidak terhad bagi membuat penentuan mengenainya. [38] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas dan dengan memgambil kira tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif yang juga memohon relif deklarasi dalam tindakannya, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa Mahkamah Sesyen adalah Mahkamah yang sepatutnya membicarakan tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif ini. [39] Sebenarnya, apa yang sepatutnya Mahkamah ini perintahkan adalah membatalkan tindakan Plaintif-plaintif dengan kebebasan memfailkan semula untuk membolehkan setiap Plaintif memfailkan tindakan mereka secara tindakan berasingan. Akan tetapi peguam Plaintif telah merayu-rayu agar tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif tidak dibatalkan bagi pemfailan semula tetapi sebalik dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen. [40] Justeru, Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan supaya kes dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen untuk dibicarakan. [Emphasis added] Abuse of process [18] In my view, it is also an abuse of process for a litigant to file his or her suit in the High Court when the claim falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts. [19] The monetary jurisdictions of the courts are prescribed by Parliament for a reason. They are not to be treated as mere ornaments to the statutes devoid of any meaning, to quote a well-known phrase used by Salleh Abas FJ in Lim Eng Kay v Jaafar bin Mohamed Said [1982] 2 MLJ 156 at page 160; [1982] CLJ 298. [20] For a claim that is filed in the Subordinate Courts any appeal will end at the Court of Appeal. For suits filed at the High Court any appeal will end at the Federal Court if leave is granted to appeal to the Federal Court. [21] Another difference arising from the filing of a suit in the Subordinate courts or the High Courts is that – if leave to appeal is required-the principles for granting leave for an appeal from the Subordinate court to the High Court are different from that of an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. I have in my Grounds of Decision in Kerajaan Malaysia v Mohd Sazali Salamat & Anor [2023] MLRHU 2090 HC sets out these differences. I do not propose to reproduce them here again. [22] A further point of difference is the costs that a winning party can recover from the losing party after a trial. The costs depend on where the suit is filed. [23] If a trial is in the Subordinate Courts the costs are fixed according to the cost schedule found in Order 59 Rule 23 of the Rules of Court 2012. Depending on the judgment sum obtained, the plaintiff is entitled to “suing costs” of x amount and “advocacy costs” of y amount based on a scale. [24] In contrast, if the trial is in the High Court, the costs are assessed and determined by the Judge based on several non-monetary factors like the complexity and novelty of the issues and time spent for trial.

[25] For the reasons above, I hereby strike out the Writ of Summons with liberty to file afresh in the Session Court with cost in the cause. …………(signed).....………. Leong Wai Hong Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCVC 10) Dated: 08th January 2023 COUNSEL: 1) Ahimsya Karunanathan and Chandrika Saravanan for plaintiff. (P S Ranjan & Co. (Kuala Lumpur)) 2) NorHayati binti Zainudin for defendant. (Murali B Pillai & Associates (Kuala Lumpur)) LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. 2) Order 57 of the Rules of Court 2012. 3) Order 57 rule 1 (2) of the Rules of Court 2012. 4) Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010. CASES REFERRED TO: 1) Beh Chew Tai & Yang Lain v DC & A Developments Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 LNS 547 HC, [2020] MLJU 2141; [2023] CLJU 547; 2) Kerajaan Malaysia v Mohd Sazali Salamat & Anor [2023] MLRHU 2090 HC. 3) Koh Kien Hooi & Ors v Kepong Industrial Park Sdn Bhd [2022] 12 MLJ 440; [2022] 7 CLJ 253; [2022] MLRHU 1095 4) Lim Eng Kay v Jaafar bin Mohamed Said [1982] 2 MLJ 156; [1982] CLJ 298 5) Mohd Rafizi bin Ramli v Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor [2019] 6 MLJ 587; [2020] 1 CLJ 498.