SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 2082

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
WEI HER PTE LTD – Appellant
Versus
OOI TEIK SENG & ANOR – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:SK Cheong ,Respondent Advocate: Foong Cheng Leong,Cyrill Clade Agus

Judgement Key Points

Yes, the court granted security for costs. The decision was based on a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances, and the court found it just and appropriate to order the plaintiff to provide RM80,000 as security for costs. The court emphasized that such discretionary decisions are made considering multiple factors and that being a foreign plaintiff or owning property within the jurisdiction alone does not automatically justify or prevent the granting of security for costs. The court aimed to balance protecting the defendant's rights while avoiding unjustly stifling the plaintiff's claim (!) (!) .


JUDGMENT

Mohd Radzi Harun J:

Introduction

[1] Encl 11 is the application by the Defendants (in the original suit) pursuant to 0 23 r 1 (a) of the Rules of 2102 ("ROC") for the Plaintiff to provide security for costs at RM80,000 until the final disposal of the Suits.

[2] I had allowed the application with costs ordered to be in the cause. The Defendants are aggrieved by that decision and filed this appeal.

[3] The following are my grounds in coming to such decision.

Finding

[4] The source of power for this Court to entertain an application for security for costs is provided in O 23 r 1(1) of the ROC which provides:

"23. (1) Where, on the application of a defendant to an action or other proceedings in the Court, it appears to the Court-

(a) that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction;

(b) that the plaintiff (not being a plaintiff who is suing in a representative capacity) is a nominal plaintiff who is suing for the benefit of some other person and that there is reason to believe that he will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if ordered to do so;

(c) subject to paragraph (2), that the plaintiff's address is not stated in the writ or originating summons or is incorrect


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top