Roberts, C.J.

PRELIMINARY.

On 9th May, the plaintiff lodged a notice of appeal against the Order of a Registrar, dated 9th April, 1996, that the plaintiff should provide security for costs in the sum of $10,000 to be paid into court on or before 9th May, 1996, failing which the action should be stayed until a further order of the court.

A further notice of appeal was entered by the plaintiff on 4th May, 1996, against the Order of the Registrar that the costs of the application should be awarded to the defendant in any event and that there should be no order for costs for the hearing before her on 2nd May, 1996.

THE CLAIM.

By his statement of claim dated 2nd January, 1996, the plaintiff alleges that, while a pedestrian, he was knocked down and injured by a car driven by the defendant, at about 2200 on 12th July, 1995 on Jalan Tasek, B.S.B. in front of the Terrace Hotel.

[Page 2]

As a result of this collision, which the plaintiff says was due to the negligence of the defendant, he suffered injuries and loss and damage.

His injuries included a fracture of the left tibia and fibula, friction burns and punctured wounds. He was in RIPAS for 30 days.

The defendant admits, in his defence, that there was a collision between the plaintiff and a car driven by the defendant, but asserts that the collision was "caused by or contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff".

This is, in effect, a denial of all liability and, if this fails, in an allegation of contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff made two statements to the police on 18th July, 1995 and 23rd March, 1996. The second, consisting of answers to three further questions, may have had the effect of strengthening the defence but cannot be said to have defeated the claim.

THE PLAINTIFF.

The plaintiff was born on 15th April, 1968 in Bangladesh. He worked in Brunei as a labourer, being paid $16.00 a day, plus $3.00 per hour for overtime work. He was not able to work after the accident and was not paid any salary until he left Brunei on 12th April, 1996. He has not returned.

He has incurred expenses for medical treatment amounting to a sum in excess of $2500. He lost wages of about $4000 (assuming 9 months work lost at about 25 days a month and a couple of days overtime a month).

It is said, in the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 28th March, 1996, that "an Order for me to provide security for costs would cause me undue hardship, which condition has been brought about by the defendant himself".

[Page 3]

I must take this to mean that the plaintiff would not be able to meet an Order to give security, though perhaps it could be more positively expressed.

IS SECURITY FOR COSTS PROPER?

Order 23 of the Brunei High Court Rules, 1990, prescribes a number of events in which security for costs may be given. Among them is that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction.

Brunei Darussalam has become the workplace of a large number of foreign workers during the past few years, particularly from Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Bangladesh.

Many of these are "contract workers", being engaged by their employers for a fixed term. This is usually for two years or less, and the worker's travel document is endorsed accordingly, as the passport of the plaintiff was.

Although such workers are "resident" in Brunei, I do not think they can properly be described as "ordinarily resident" here, as a permanent resident can.

This being so, it follows that an order for the giving of security for costs can be made against the plaintiff, whose ordinary place of residence is Bangladesh, a country to which he returned on 12th April, 1996, on the conclusion of his contract (and its extension) in Brunei.

PRINCIPLES TO APPLY.

The matters which should be considered on an application for security for costs were set out in John Anthony Metclaffe v BSP Co. and another, reported in Brunei Judgments (BJ.) 1992 p.369 and in Job Associates Co. v BSP Co. (BJ.) 1994