A claim for malicious prosecution must establish that proceedings were initiated without reasonable and probable cause and terminated in favor of the plaintiff; the existing legal standards were not met.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who had allowed the respondent's claim for malicious prosecution against the appellant.

[2] The respondent had also filed a cross-appeal against the decision of the learned judge who had dismissed its claim for the tort of abuse of legal process.

[3] At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal and cross-appeal, we allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal with costs of RM50,000 here and below to the appellant and ordered that the deposit be refunded.

[4] In this judgment the appellant and respondent will be referred to as the defendant and plaintiff respectively.

[5] We set down below the reasons for our decision.

Background Facts

[6] The facts leading to the filing of this suit are largely undisputed and are as follows.

[7] The defendant had commenced an action against the plaintiff in the Sessions Court of Kuala Lumpur for the sum of RM76,500.00 being monies due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant for services rendered by the defendant at the plaintiff's request.

[8] On 1 April 2010 Judgment In Default was entered against the plaintiff for RM76,500.00 together with interest and costs. (the said JID).

[9] Pursuant to obtaining the said JID, the defendant filed on 24 June 2010, an application for Judgment Debtor Summons (JDS) to be issued against the Directors of the plaintiff, namely Mohamad bin Adam and Mohd Shamil bin Mohd Yusoff.

[10] The JDS against Mohd Shamil was subsequently withdrawn on 13 June 2011.

[11] The JDS came up for hearing on 23 June 2011 and 29 June 2011 wherein Mohamed bin Adam was present. After examination by the Court an order was made on 29 June 2011 for the Judgment Debtor to make monthly payments. The first instalment payment was due on 30 August 2011.

[12] On 28 January 2011, the defendant served on the plaintiff a s 218 Notice.

[13] On 10 March 2011, the defendant filed a winding-up petition against the plaintiff at the High Court in Shah Alam.

[14] On 14 July 2011, the Shah Alam High Court ordered the plaintiff to be wound-up. (The said winding-up-order).

[15] On 24 October 2011, the plaintiff was granted a temporary stay of the said winding-up order for a period of one year

[16] On 23 October 2012, the plaintiff filed a 2nd application for stay under s 243 of the Companies Act 1965 seeking, inter alia, a permanent stay of the said winding-up order.

[17] Also on 23 October 2012, the plaintiff filed this suit (the subject matter of the present appeal) against the defendant contending that the defendant had maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, caused the plaintiff to be compulsorily wound-up under s 218 of the Companies Act 1965 on or about 14 July 2011. Alternatively, the plaintiff contended that the winding- up proceedings were brought and continued by the defendant in bad faith, maliciously and with the ulterior motive of damaging the plaintiff's business rather than furthering any legitimate interest of the defendant and/or without probable cause.

[18] On 21 November 2012 a temporary stay of the said winding-up order was ordered by consent of all parties pending the disposal of the plaintiff's application for a permanent stay.

[19] On 2 May 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff a permanent stay of the said winding-up-order upon the plaintiff paying the Official Receiver the sum of RM53,