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

2025 MarsdenLR 2331

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SYED SAZLEE SYED HAMZAH – Appellant
Versus
PUNCAK KENANGAN (M) SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-829-11/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Stanley Sinnappen,Dennis Xavier,Haikal Akiemy ,Respondent Advocate: Jeyakumar Palakrishnar,Normadiah

A nominal plaintiff may be ordered to provide security for costs if acting on behalf of a non-party who has a financial interest, especially in champertous arrangements.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 23 rr 1(1) and 1(2A) - Security for costs - Applications by multiple defendants for security for costs against the plaintiff and a non-party due to allegations of champerty and the plaintiff's inability to pay costs - The court discussed the nominal plaintiff doctrine and found that the plaintiff, while acting as executor, was essentially serving the interests of a non-party funder. (Paras 28, 42, 49, 59)

(B) Champerty and maintenance - The court outlined principles of champerty and determined that the arrangements between the plaintiff and the non-party suggested potential champerty. (Paras 49, 55)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, as executor, claimed over RM21 million in dividends owed to his late father, implicating significant documentation reflecting agreements with a non-party, Khoo Kiam Chong. The applications for costs security arose from concerns over the plaintiff's financial means and control by KKC. (Paras 2, 26)

Findings of Court:
The court found it just to order security for costs against the non-party based on evidence of financial contribution and control of litigation. The security amounts were adjusted to RM250,000 and RM150,000 for the respective applications. (Paras 84)

Issues: Whether the plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff; the application of champerty principles; and the appropriate quantum of security. (Paras 28, 49, 84)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that despite the plaintiff's formal capacity, the evidence indicated he was acting as a nominal plaintiff on behalf of a non-party with a significant interest, warranting the imposition of security for costs against the non-party. (Paras 84)

Result: Both applications for security for costs were allowed, with adjusted amounts ordered. (Paras 84)

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual background of the plaintiff’s claim. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. application for security for costs by multiple defendants. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. further applications for security by different defendants. (Para 11 , 12 , 17)
4. defendants argue the plaintiff’s lack of financial means. (Para 14 , 15 , 19)
5. court analysis on delay in application for costs. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 33)
6. assessment of contribution by kkc for plaintiff's costs. (Para 39 , 41 , 45)
7. discussion on champerty and public policy in litigation funding. (Para 49 , 50 , 53)
8. considering the plaintiff's financial ability to pay costs. (Para 60 , 62 , 63)
9. final order on security for costs granted against kkc. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85)
JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] Before the court is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants' application for security for costs vide encl 153 and the 4th and 5th Defendants' application for security for costs vide encl 155. Both applications seek security for costs against the Plaintiff and/or a non-party, one Khoo Kiam Chong (NRIC No: 560731-06-5189) ("KKC"), pursuant to O 23 rr 1(1) and 1(2A) of the Rules of court 2012.

Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff is suing in his capacity as the executor of the estate of his late father, Syed Hamzah bin Syed Abu Bakar ("the Deceased'), who passed away on 18 July 2021. The Deceased was, at the material times, allegedly a shareholder of the 1st Defendant, Puncak Kenangan (M) Sdn Bhd.

[3] The Plaintiff's claim exceeds RM21 million and is essentially for dividends allegedly due to the Deceased from the 1st Defendant. The claim involves disputes relating to the shareholding of the Deceased in the 1st Defendant and/or entitlements flowing from such shareholding.

[4] There exists three significant documents bearing on this application:

a) Power of Attorney dated 19 May 2016 ("POA") executed between the Deceased, KKC and KKC's son, Ruben Khoo Sheng Luen;

b) Declaration of Trust dated 13 May 2016 ("Declaration of Trust'); and

c) Agreement for Shares dated 26 February 2021 ("Agreement for Shares').

[5] These documents, collectively referred to as "the Instruments", form the basis of the Defendants' applications. The POA granted KKC powers to prosecute actions on behalf of the Deceased, while the Declaration of Trust indicated that the Deceased would hold 47.5% of his interest in the 1st Defendant for KKC. The Agreement for Shares similarly reflected the Deceased's agreement to grant 47.5% of his 50% shareholding in the 1st Defendant to KKC in consideration of KKC's assistance and financial services.

[6] The dispute has prompted extensive litigation, including Kuala Lumpur Suit No WA-22NCC-221-05/2022 ("Suit 221") and Kuala Lumpur Suit No WA-22NCC-319-07/2022 ("Suit 319"), which are partly heard but have yet to be concluded.

[7] It is also pertinent to note that there have been costs and damages orders against the Plaintiff in a separate proceeding, Kuala Lumpur Suit No WA-22NCC-623-11/2019 ("Suit 623"), amounting to RM375,041.56, which remain unpaid to date.

The Applications

Enclosure 153 — The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th And 8th Defendants' Application

[8] By Notice of Application dated 15 November 2024 filed as encl 153, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants seek an order that the Plaintiff and/or KKC provide security for costs in the sum of RM720,000.00 or any other amount deemed just and reasonable by the court.

[9] The application is supported by an Affidavit in Support affirmed by Sharifah Shaheera Shahab binti Syed Mustaffa on 15 November 2024 (Enclosure 154), which annexes, among other documents, the three Instruments and an estimated bill of costs.

[10] The primary grounds for the application, as stated in the Notice of Application and Affidavit in Support, are:

a) That the Plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff suing on behalf of KKC;

b) That KKC had financed all the Deceased's litigation and is driving this action;

c) That KKC has a

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