JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] The Appellant/Plaintiff's main grievance arose from an Unless Order issued by the Sessions Court , requiring the payment of security for costs into Court . As the Appellant/Plaintiff has since deposited the sum of RM20,000.00 as ordered, the Respondent/Defendant contended that the appeal has been rendered academic. However, this Court is inclined to agree with the Appellant/Plaintiff that the central issue, namely, whether it was proper for the Sessions Court to impose an Unless Order in the context of a security for costs application, remains a live and justiciable question.

The Core Issues

[2] This appeal raises two issues. The first concerns whether an order for security for costs ought to be granted. The second and more crucial issue is whether the Sessions Court 's order in paragraph (d), described by the Appellant/Plaintiff as "draconian", is permissible within the context of a security for costs application.

The Appellant/Plaintiff's Contention

[3] The Appellant/Plaintiff's main bone of contention is with regard to the relief in paragraph (d) which was as follows:

(d) Sekiranya Plaintif gagal untuk mematuhi perenggan (a) di atas, Writ Saman bertarikh 8 Disember 2023 (Lampiran 1) yang difailkan oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama hendaklah dibatalkan serta-merta tanpa kebebasan untuk memfailkan semula dan Tuntutan Balas Defendan Pertama bertarikh 19 Januari 2024 diteruskan untuk bicara.

[4] The Sessions Court had allowed relief sought by the Respondent/Defendant in paragraph (d) - one which the Appellant/Plaintiff regarded as a "Draconian Order" - but the amount to be paid as security for costs as prayed for in paragraph (a) had been varied to RM20,000.00.

[5] The complete grounds raised by the Appellant/Plaintiff in this appeal were as follows:

• That the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to consider the issue of delay by the Respondent in making its application for security for costs and that the delay was unexplained by the Respondent;

• That the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to consider and apply the principle that security for costs should not be ordered if the Appellant's financial condition was brought about by the wrongs of the Respondent;

• That the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to appreciate that the jurisdiction of the Court when ordering security for costs pursuant to s 580A of the Companies Act 2016 is to order a stay of proceedings until security is given;

• That the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to appreciate that the Court did not have the jurisdiction, under s 580A of the Companies Act 2016 or an inherent jurisdiction to make the Unless Order (that the Writ be automatically struck out if the security for costs is not provided within 14 days);

• Alternatively, if the jurisdiction exists to make the Unless Order, failed to hear further arguments on whether such jurisdiction ought to be exercised in the circumstances of the case;

• That the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to hear further arguments on the lack of jurisdiction to make the Unless Order before the said Order of 14 March 2025 was sealed when counsel for the Appellant had applied for further arguments; and

• That the learned Sessions Court Judge wrongly ignored the Appellant's application for the Unless Order to be stayed pending this appeal and preventing the application from being repeated in the e-review proceedings on 21 March 2025, thereby defeating the stay application without any hearing.

[6] The Appellant/Plaintiff's contention in challenging the order for security for costs is premised on a number of Court of Appeal decisions, namely:

Haidakota (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tan Tiam Chai & Another Appeal; [2009] 1 CLJ 699: (which the Appellant/Plaintiff contended "is a relevant binding decision which is immediately in point"); and Perbadanan Pengurusan City Plaza v. Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd; [2024] 3 MLJ 209 see paras 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 35 & 36: (which the Appellan