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

2008 MarsdenLR 344

COURT OF APPEAL , PUTRAJAYA
HAIDAKOTA (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TAN TIAM CHAI & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA delivering JUDGMENT:

[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] An order directing security for costs is a discretionary order. The general principle upon which this court acts in appeals against such orders is that it will not interfere unless it is demonstrated that the primary judge had taken into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations or asked himself or herself the wrong question or misdirected himself or herself in law. The initial jurisdiction of this court is therefore one of review only. Once reasons for the exercise of discretion are given, this court is most reluctant to interfere with the decision of the judge at first instance. But this is a case where no reason has been given, so the matter is at large before us.

12

[3] The starting point is s. 351 of the Companies Act 1965 ("the Act") which confers a very wide discretion on the High court to order a company to provide security for costs in an action brought by it or indeed against it. But the discretion is not untrammeled. Nor is it unprincipled. For there are settled guidelines upon which the discretion falls to be exercised. First, the applica

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