Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali J:

JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]This concerns applications for security for costs filed by three defendants resisting a writ action instituted by the plaintiff.

[2]At the conclusion of the hearing of the applications, I allowed the same, and highlighted the key grounds for my decision. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.

Key Background Facts

[3]The plaintiff, a company in the business of providing customer loyalty management solutions services, had filed a writ action against the defendants for an alleged debt. At the material time when the said debt is claimed to have accrued, the plaintiff company was owned by the first defendant company. The second and third defendants were directors on the board of the plaintiff, from 22 September 2010 to 8 July 2011 and from 13 May 2010 to 8 July 2011, respectively. The second and third defendants are presently also directors of the first defendant company. They have been in office since 27 July 2017 and 12 April 2010, respectively.

[4]The plaintiff is currently in liquidation. It was wound up on 30 March 2012. It seems clear and undisputed that the winding up resulted from the plaintiff’s non-payment of sums