PUTRAJAYA, Sept 21 - 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has filed an application seeking leave to appeal the appellate court’s ruling that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear its lawsuit against a United Kingdom (UK) law firm.
Lawyer Lim Zhi Ying, one of the lawyers representing 1MDB, confirmed the notice of motion was filed on August 28 this year.
She also told Bernama that the Federal Court has fixed October 12 to hear the leave to appeal application.
In its application, 1MDB sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision, citing that there are important questions of general principles to be decided for the first time by the top court.
1MDB has put forward 24 questions of law concerning jurisdiction and consolidation of its suit in seeking leave to appeal from the Federal Court.
Among the questions include whether in determining the forum conveniens (an appropriate forum) for a claim in conspiracy involving alleged conspirators across multiple jurisdictions, the relevant connecting factors to be assessed by reference to the alleged conspiracy as a whole, including the places where the other alleged conspirators and material witnesses are located, and not by reference to the circumstances and location of the particular foreign defendant challenging jurisdiction.
On August 20, a three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Alwi Abdul Wahab, K. Muniandy, and Datuk Aliza Sulaiman allowed White and Case LLB’s appeal, ruling that the Kuala Lumpur High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear 1MDB’s suit against the firm.
Justice Muniandy, who delivered the unanimous decision, held that the requirements under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and the Rules of Court 2012 for the service of proceedings outside Malaysia had not been satisfied.
He said 1MDB failed to prove that Malaysia is clearly the forum convenient to hear this suit, as PetroSaudi International Ltd director Patrick Mahony is a foreign national residing outside Malaysia and therefore could not serve as a proper “anchor defendant” to justify the service of proceedings out of jurisdiction.
The panel also set aside the High Court’s decision to consolidate 1MDB’s suit against White & Case with a separate suit filed by the sovereign wealth fund against several other defendants, including Deutsche Bank and PetroSaudi International.
1MDB filed the suit in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in 2024, seeking US$1.83 billion (RM7.46 billion) and US$33 million (RM134.5 million) in losses from White & Case and Mahony. The fund alleged that White & Case assisted PetroSaudi in committing fraud and conspired to harm 1MDB while acting as its legal counsel.
The alleged misconduct relates to two corporate transactions: the 2009 joint venture with PetroSaudi International, known as the Good Star phase, and the 2010 restructuring of 1MDB’s stake in the joint venture, which 1MDB claims resulted in significant financial losses.
The writ of summons was served out of jurisdiction on White & Case at their UK offices, and the firm subsequently applied to set aside the service, seeking a declaration that the Malaysian court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Last year, the High Court rejected White & Case’s challenge, ruling that it could hear the lawsuit because the trial witnesses are located in Malaysia.
