1Malaysia Development Berhad v 1. ) Patrick Andrew Marc Mahony 2. ) White & Case LLP
wa-22ncc-294-05-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 December 2025 • WA-22NCC-294-05/2024 • 30 min read
4 cases cited
(0 SG, 4 foreign)
Catchwords
I. Whether 1MDB must show the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction over White & Case under both section 23 (1) of the CJA and Order 11 of the ROC; -ii. Whether the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction over White & Case under section 23 (1) of the CJA for 1MDB’s claim against White & Case for dishonest assistance;-iii. Whether the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction over White & Case under section 23 (1) of the CJA for 1MDB’s claim against White & Case for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means;-iv. Whether the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction over White & Case under Order 11 ROC for 1MDB’s claim against White & Case for dishonest assistance; v. Whether the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction over White & Case under Order 11 ROC for 1MDB’s claim against White & Case for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means; vi. Whether Order 11 ROC requires 1MDB to show, for each cause of action, that: (i) 1MDB has a good arguable case that one of the jurisdictional gateways in Order 11 Rule 1(1)(A) to (M) ROC applies; (ii) there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits; and (iii) Malaysia is the appropriate forum to hear the claim;-vii.Whether 1MDB failed to make full And frank disclosure; and-viii. Whether this suit should be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens-Exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction by a state court is exceptional-The trend now is to move to a pragmatic interpretation of the ‘gateways to jurisdiction’. ‘Gateways to jurisdiction’ is now the preferred terminology replacing the earlier term “Heads of jurisdiction”-It should no longer be necessary to resort to the kind of muscular presumptions against service out which are implicit in adjectives like ‘‘exorbitant''. The decision is generally a pragmatic one in the interests of the efficient conduct of litigation in an appropriate forum-section 23 of the CJA is a new legislation on extra-territorial jurisdiction introduced by legislature, and its words must be construed without being constrained by the then existing state of the common law on the jurisdiction of the High Courts-The Malaysian Supreme Court further noted that there is no equivalent statutory provision in England to our section 23(1)(b) CJA-[8] … In Malaysia, the High Court is seised of jurisdiction over a dispute in any of the following three cases:(i) where the defendant is served with the writ or other originating process within the jurisdiction; or (ii) where any of the conditions set out in s 23 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('the CJA') are satisfied; or (iii) where a plaintiff is able to obtain leave of court to serve a defendant who is outside the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to O 11 of the RHC.-i. The characterisation of process out of the jurisdiction as an ‘‘exorbitant'' jurisdiction is a traditional characterisation, and was based on the notion that the service of proceedings abroad was an assertion of sovereign power over a foreign defendant and a corresponding interference with the sovereignty of the state in which process was served. This is no longer a realistic view. The decision now should be based on a pragmatic one in the interests of the efficient conduct of litigation in an appropriate forum. [See Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043 UK Supreme Court]. ii. Process out of the jurisdiction should no longer be viewed as an ‘‘exorbitant'' jurisdiction that the courts should be reluctant to exercise. The world has changed much due to globalisation. Fraudsters nowadays operate from multiple jurisdictions. Funds can now move easily across jurisdictions with a single click or tap via digital platforms. The courts too must move with the times. This is particularly so if the elements of the cause of action took place in multiple jurisdictions as is the case before me. iii. Section 23 of the CJA is a new legislation on extra-territorial jurisdiction introduced by legislat
Judges (1)
Counsel (13)
Chooi & Company Firm Lim Chee Wee Partnership Firm Christopher Leong Sau Foo Counsel Defendant Dato' Lim Chee Wee Counsel Plaintiff Elizabeth Lau Counsel Plaintiff Hazel Siau Counsel Plaintiff Lee Jie Kai Counsel Plaintiff Lynnette Wong Counsel Plaintiff Ranjit Singh s/o Harbinder Singh Counsel Defendant Shamala Devi Balasundaram Counsel Defendant Siow Poh Ching Counsel Defendant Soh Lip Shan Counsel Plaintiff Yuki Lim Jieny Counsel Defendant
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (4)
UK (1)
[2025] EWHC 495
MY (3)
[1979] 2 MLJ 244 [2010] MLJU 1854 [2022] 7 MLJ 883
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-294-05-2024)