Hishamudin Yunus J:

The plaintiff is a pilot with the Malaysian Airline System Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "MAS"), that is to say, the sixth defendant. On 4 February 2000, he filed a suit against the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants for conspiracy. It is alleged in the statement of claim that these five defendants, all employees of MAS, conspired to defraud and to injure the plaintiff.

Subsequently, the plaintiff by summons in chambers (encl. 5) applied to amend the writ so as to add MAS as the sixth defendant and to include averments against MAS in the statement of claim. The application is yet to be heard, but in the meantime, on 11 April 2001, the court (Mohd Noor Ahmad J as he then was) allowed the writ to be amended but only to include MAS as the sixth defendant in the writ.

Thereafter, on 20 April 2001, the plaintiff filed a further application videencl. 9. Enclosure 9 is an interlocutory application by the plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the sixth defendant (MAS) from proceeding with a disciplinary inquiry against him.

Pending the hearing of encl. 9, upon the application of the plaintiff, the court granted an interim order restraining the sixth defendant from proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry until the disposal of encl. 9, subject to the usual undertaking by the plaintiff as to damages.

Subsequently, after considering and hearing both oral and written submissions on encl. 9, I dismissed the plaintiff's interlocutory application (encl. 9).

On the question of costs in regard to encl. 9, an issue arises as to when must the costs be paid by the plaintiff to the sixth defendant. The learned counsel for the sixth defendant, Encik Rosli Dahlan, applies to the court that costs be taxed and paid forthwith. But the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Encik Cantius Leo, on the other hand objects and contends that the costs should be taxed and paid only after the conclusion of the main action.

In addition, there is also a dispute as to when damages against the plaintiff in respect of the undertaking as to damages, given by the plaintiff when applying for the interim order, should be assessed and paid. The sixth defendant applies to the court to have the damages assessed and be paid forthwith, but the plaintiff insists that damages, if any, should only be assessed at the end of the action.

I shall deal with the issue of costs first.

On this issue, after considering the written submissions, the facts of the case and the principles, I am of the opinion that costs should be taxed and paid forthwith by the plaintiff to the sixth defendant.

I shall give my reasons.

Order 59 r. 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court (the RHC) provides:

4. Stage of proceedings at which costs to be dealt with (O. 59 r. 4)

(1)Costs may be dealt with by the Court at any stage of the proceedings or after the conclusion of the proceedings; and any order of the Court for the payment of any costs may, if the Court thinks fit, require the costs to be paid forthwith notwithstanding that the proceedings have not been concluded.

It will be noted that the above provision uses the word "proceedings". It might be asked whether "proceedings" include an interlocutory application such as encl. 9, which is an application for an interlocutory injunction? The answer, in my opinion, must be in the affirmative. Although neither O. 59 nor the RHC provides for a definition of "proceedings", nevertheless "proceeding" is defined by s. 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 as follows:

"proceeding" means any proceeding whatsoever of a civil or criminal nature and includes an application at any stage of a proceeding.

In my view, the phrase "an application at any stage of a proceeding" in the above definition includes an interlocutory application such as encl. 9.

The RHC is a subsidiary legislation made by the Rules Committee pursuant to s. 16 of the Courts of Judicature Act. Therefore, the definition of "proceeding" under the