JUDGMENT

(Enclosures 4, 13 And 15)

Mohamad Redzuan Idrus JC:

I. Introduction

[1] Before this court are three interlocutory applications arising in the same suit. The suit involves 54 plaintiffs and 17 defendants. The plaintiffs are all ordinarily resident outside Malaysia.

[2] The first application is by the plaintiffs (encl 4) for an order to transfer or consolidate the present proceedings with a related matter pending before Mahkamah Tinggi Dagang 8 ("MTD8") of this court.

[3] The second application is by the 3rd to 8th Defendants (encl 13) for an order that the plaintiffs furnish security for costs in the sum of RM500,000.00, to be paid into the client account of the plaintiffs' solicitors.

[4] The third application is by the 1st, 9th to 17th Defendants (encl 15) for the same relief — an order that the plaintiffs furnish security for costs in the sum of RM500,000.00, likewise to be paid into the client account of the plaintiffs' solicitors.

[5] Having heard submissions from all parties on all three applications, this court:

a. dismisses encl 4, with costs of RM3,000.00 to the defendants; and

b. allows encls 13 and 15, and orders the plaintiffs to furnish security for costs in the sum of RM500,000.00 each, to be paid into the client account of the plaintiffs' solicitors within 14 days.

[6] These are the consolidated grounds for all three decisions.

II. Background Facts

[7] The present suit was filed on 28 March 2025 and assigned to NCC 6 in the ordinary course of the court's case allocation process. This case then was assigned to this court on 9 April 2025. The 54 plaintiffs are all ordinarily resident outside Malaysia. The defendants are 17 in number.

[8] The plaintiffs assert that a separate but related matter involving substantially similar subject matter is currently pending before MTD8, which sits within the same division and the same building as this court. On that basis, the plaintiffs applied by encl 4 for the present suit to be transferred to MTD8 or, in the alternative, consolidated with the proceedings there.

[9] The 3rd to 8th Defendants (encl 13) and the 1st, 9th to 17th Defendants (encl 15) each separately applied for security for costs, relying on the foreign residency of all 54 plaintiffs, the absence of any information as to their solvency or continued existence, and the impracticality of enforcing any adverse costs order against them.

[10] The plaintiffs oppose both applications under encls 13 and 15.

III. Parties' Submissions

A. Enclosure 4 — Transfer/Consolidation

[11] The plaintiffs submit that since a related matter is pending before MTD8, it is more efficient and produces greater consistency if both matters are heard by the same judge.

[12] The plaintiffs contend that the judge in MTD8 has acquired familiarity with the facts and background common to both matters and that this familiarity would assist in the expeditious disposal of the present suit.

[13] The defendants oppose the application. They characterise it as an exercise in judge shopping — an attempt to move the matter before a judge perceived by the plaintiffs to be more favourable. They submit that case allocation is an administrative function of the court and is not amenable to manipulation by a party's preference. No principled basis for transfer has been shown.

B. Enclosures 13 And 15 — Security For Costs

[14] The 3rd to 8th Defendants (encl 13) and the 1st, 9th to 17th Defendants (encl 15) each submit that the plaintiffs are all foreign residents and that there is no reliable information before the court as to the solvency, current whereabouts, or continued existence of each of the 54 plaintiffs. They submit that enforcing an adverse costs order against 54 foreign individuals would be commercially impossible. The sum of RM500,000.00 is said to be reasonable and, if anything, conservative given the number of parties and the complexity of the litigation.

[15] The plaintiffs resist both security applications on the ground that an order for security would effectively