Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 2086

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LIM SIM EE – Appellant
Versus
DSI NORTHERN SOURCE SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Teoh Bi Shan ,Respondent Advocate: Loo Say Hock

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court has absolute discretion to order security for costs under Order 23 r 1 ROC 2012, considering all circumstances (!) (!) - (!) . - The Court must assess residency, financial capacity, previous non-compliance with orders, and lack of assets in Malaysia when deciding security for costs (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court concluded the Plaintiff, a Singaporean citizen with no demonstrated Malaysian assets or ordinary residency in Malaysia, should provide security for costs; RM40,000.00 was established as the appropriate amount (!) (!) (!) .

What is the discretion of the court to order security for costs against a foreign plaintiff under Order 23 r 1 ROC 2012?

What factors did the court consider in determining whether to grant security for costs and in what amount?

What is the result and rationale for ordering security for costs in this case (including residency, assets, and compliance considerations)?

Table of Content
1. allegations of oppressive conduct in management. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. discretion to order security for costs. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments regarding plaintiff's residency and financial capacity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. court's findings on plaintiff's residency and financial stability. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. order for security for costs granted. (Para 33)

Jamhirah Ali JC

Introduction

[1] The Defendants filed encl 67, which is an application pursuant to O 23 r 1(1)(a) of Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012), for an order that the Plaintiff be required to provide security for costs amounting to RM100,000.00 or such other sum as is deemed fit.?

[2] The current legal action initiated by the Plaintiff is premised on allegations of oppressive conduct of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants against the Plaintiff in their management of the 1st Defendant and its subsidiaries.

[3] The Plaintiff seeks remedies and relief for purported losses incurred as a minority shareholder in the 1st Defendant and its subsidiaries due to the alleged oppressive conduct of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in their management

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 2086

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAMLIM SIM EE – AppellantVersusDSI NORTHERN SOURCE SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent

What is the discretion of the court to order security for costs against a foreign plaintiff under Order 23 r 1 ROC 2012?

What factors did the court consider in determining whether to grant security for costs and in what amount?

What is the result and rationale for ordering security for costs in this case (including residency, assets, and compliance considerations)?

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LIM SIM EE – Appellant
Versus
DSI NORTHERN SOURCE SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent