JUDGMENT

Jamhirah Ali J:

Introduction

[1] This is the application by the First and Third Defendants for security for costs under O 23 r 1(1) of the Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012) and/or the Court 's inherent jurisdiction, as set out in encls 36 and 30 respectively.

[2] Upon considering the cause papers and the written and oral submissions by the parties, and the authorities cited therein, this Court finds merit in the First and Third Defendants' application. My reasons are stated below.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff, an Indian national, was employed as the General Manager of Technology in the Research & Development Department of the First Defendant from 1 August 2020 to 24 November 2022.

[4] On 3 August 2022, the First Defendant issued a show cause letter to the Plaintiff concerning allegations of misconduct. Subsequently, the First Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment effective 24 November 2022, by paying three months' salary in lieu of notice. The Plaintiff appealed the termination on 26 November 2022, but it was rejected by the First Defendant on 15 December 2022.

[5] The Plaintiff filed a representation for unfair dismissal under s 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. During the conciliation, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement dated 6 April 2023, whereby the First Defendant paid the Plaintiff RM1,226,988.00 as a full and final settlement of all matters related to his employment and termination. The Third Defendant was not involved in the Plaintiff's employment or termination and was not a party to the said Settlement Agreement.

[6] On 12 June 2024, the Plaintiff, through his solicitors, issued a notice of demand to the First Defendant alleging failure to protect him as a whistleblower under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. The First Defendant denied these allegations and demanded restitution of the settlement sum. No response was received from the Plaintiff.

[7] The Plaintiff also issued a demand to the Third Defendant on 12 June 2024. The Third Defendant denied liability, stating that the Plaintiff was not its employee and that it had no involvement in the disciplinary process.

[8] The Plaintiff subsequently filed this action seeking relief under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, naming multiple entities and individuals as defendants, including the First and Third Defendants. He has also filed an application for interim injunctive relief to prevent further disciplinary actions and reliance on the termination.

[9] The First and Third Defendants subsequently filed applications for security for costs in encls 36 and 30, respectively, asserting that the Plaintiff is a foreign national with no permanent residence, has no assets within the jurisdiction, and no known financial means to satisfy a costs order if the claim is dismissed.

[10] The First and Third Defendants seek an order for the Plaintiff to furnish security for costs in view of the history and nature of the proceedings.

The Third Defendant's Preliminary Objection On The Plaintiff's Affidavit In Reply In Enclosure 33

[11] The Third Defendant raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply, asserting non-compliance with O 41 r 3 of the ROC 2012. The affidavit was filed in Bahasa Malaysia without a proper jurat stating that the contents were read and explained to the Plaintiff, who is a foreign national not conversant in the national language.

[12] The Plaintiff did not dispute his lack of understanding of Bahasa Malaysia, nor did he take any steps to regularise the affidavit, despite being made aware of the defect by the Third Defendant's affidavit filed on 25 November 2024. The Plaintiff merely claimed that the omission was unintentional and that no substantial injustice had occurred.

[13] I agree with the Third Defendant's argument that compliance with O 41 r 3 is mandatory when the deponent is illiterate in the language used. The decisions in Gan Thing Phing v. Ong Gek