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

2024 MarsdenLR 328

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TAN SEE MENG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
ABLE OILS & FATS SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: W-02(IM)(NCC)-1240-07-2022 W-02(IM)(NCC)-1544-08-2022 & W-02(IM)(NCC)-2041-10-2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud,Hasshahari Johari Mawi,Muhamad Hafizan Shafuan Kamarulzaman,Mahzal Nazrin Mahat ,Respondent Advocate: Lim Koon Huan,Siew Ka Yan

The court has discretion to order security for costs based on the financial status of the parties and the merits of the appeal, with impecuniosity not being a sole determinant.

Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Section 44(1) – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 – Rule 17(1) – Security for costs – Application for security for costs by the Respondent against the 4th and 5th appellants granted due to their impecuniosity – The 1st to 3rd appellants' application for security dismissed as they do not meet the threshold requirements – The court emphasized that impecuniosity alone is not sufficient to order security for costs. (Paras 20, 26, 29, 30)

(B) Security for Costs – The court has discretion to order security for costs based on the circumstances of the case, including the financial status of the parties and the merits of the appeal – The court found that the 4th and 5th appellants were unable to pay costs, justifying the order for security. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case: The appellants are shareholders of two companies involved in a dispute regarding a call option agreement. The Respondent sought security for costs due to the appellants' financial difficulties and the potential for prolonged litigation. (Paras 6-10)

Findings of Court: The court ordered the 4th and 5th appellants to pay RM50,000.00 as security for costs, while dismissing the application against the 1st to 3rd appellants. (Paras 4, 33)

Issues: The main issues included whether the appellants should provide security for costs and the implications of their financial status on the court's decision. (Paras 20, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the 1st to 3rd appellants did not meet the criteria for security, the 4th and 5th appellants' financial incapacity warranted the order for security for costs. (Paras 29, 30)

Result: Security for costs ordered against the 4th and 5th appellants; application against the 1st to 3rd appellants dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Lim Chong Fong JCA:

Introduction

[1] These are interlocutory applications for security for costs pending the hearing of appeal in the Court of Appeal.

[2] The First to 3rd appellants are Malaysian citizens while the Fourth and 5th appellants are Malaysian incorporated private limited companies.

[3] The Respondent is also a Malaysian incorporated private limited company.

[4] We heard the applications on 2 February 2022 and unanimously decided as follows:

(1) We order the 4th appellant to pay security of costs of RM50,000.00 in total in respect of all three pending appeals referred in encls 31, 37 and 34 within one month from today. We also ordered the 5th appellant to pay security of costs of RM50,000.00 in total in respect of all three pending appeals referred to in encls 31, 37 and 34 within one month from today. If such security is not given within the stipulated time, the Respondent is at liberty to apply to strike out Appeals no 1240, 1544 and 2041.

(2) Case management fixed on 4 March 2024. The pending appeals to be heard after this date.

(3) We dismiss the application for security for costs against the First, Second and 3rd appellants. No order as to costs.

(4) As for the 1st to 3rd appellants, the appeals are adjourned until the 4th and 5th appellants pay the amount of RM50,000.00. If security for costs is not paid by 4 March 2024, all three appeals by the 4th and 5th appellants will be struck out. As for appeals by the 1st to 3rd appellants, the date to hear the appeals will be fixed by the Court.

[5] We now provide the grounds of our decision below.

Background

[6] The 1st to 3rd appellants are shareholders of the 4th and 5th appellants.

[7] The 4th appellant is in the business of sale of edible oils and also operates a factory that filters and recycles oil for its business. The 5th appellant is dormant but is the registered proprietor of the land that houses the factory operated by the 4th appellant.

[8] By a call option an agreement was entered into between the 1st and 3rd appellants and the Respondent ("Agreement") for purposes of the continuing of the aforementioned business and factory operation.

[9] By reason of a dispute that arose between the 1st and 3rd appellants and the Respondent in respect of the Agreement, the Respondent on 2 June 2022 commenced Kuala Lumpur High Court suit No WA-22NCC-246-06/2022 ("Suit") against the Appellants.

[10] Upon further applications of the Respondent pursuant to the Suit, the High Court had made the following orders on 1 July 2022, 12 August 2022 and 4 October 2022 respectively ("Decisions"):

PERINTAH UNTUK INJUKSI

Kandungan 5

ATAS PERMOHONAN Plaintif yang dinamakan di atas yang ditetapkan untuk pendengaran pada hari ini DAN SETELAH MEMBACA Notis Permohonan bertarikh pada 10 Jun 2022 (Kandungan 5), Perintah Untuk Injunksi Ad Interim bertarikh 15 Jun 2022 dan semua kertas-kertas kausa yang berkenaan yang kesemuanya difailkan di sini DAN SETELAH MENDENGAR Lim Koon Huan (Karen Tan Wee Sean bersamanya) peguam bagi pihak Plaintif dan Hasshahari Bin Johari Mawi peguam bagi pihak Defendan-Defendan, ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa Defendan- Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya ejen-ejen pekhidmat-pekhidmat, pekerja-pekerja alau sebaliknya bagaimanapun dihalang daripada:

(1) berurusan dengan atau selainnya melupuskan aset, stok. inventories dan bahan mentah dalam simpanan tangki Defendan Keempat (termasuk minyak sawit mentah (crude palm oil), kelapa mentah minyak (crude coconut oil), pemendekan (shortening) dan lemak susu kontang (anhydrous milk fat)) melainkan dan kecuali urntuk tujuan memenuhi kontrak-kontrak yang telah dimasuki di antara Defendan Ke-4 dengan pelanggan-pelanggannya pada atau sebelum 25 Mei 2022. sementara menunggu pelupusan tindakan ini;

(2) berurusan dengan atau selainnya melupuskan wang dalam akaun bank Defendan Keempat (termasuk United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad Akaun No: 229-309-070-1 dan Public Bank Berhad Akaun No: 31212155-18) dan akaun bank Defendan Kelima (termasuk Malaya

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 Back to top