SUNG TIAK KENG vs SIANG TIAK HOCK

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 15 rule 6, Order 42 rules 7, 8 and 9, Order 59 rules 1, 2 and 7 - Companies Act 2016 - Section 465(1)(h) and 477(1)(a) - Status of a party - Nominal defendant - A party remains a defendant until removed by amendment, discontinuation, or final judgment - Absence of separate representation does not expunge a party from the record nor exempt them from the operation of the judgment (Paras 14, 16, 17)

(B) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 59 rule 7(4) - Allocatur fee - The fee is a statutory condition for the issuance of an allocatur certificate and not a freestanding levy upon the pronouncement of costs - Where costs awards are mutually set off such that no payment passes, no certificate is required for receipt or enforcement, and consequently, no allocatur fee is payable (Paras 24, 25, 27)

(C) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 42 - Entry and perfection of orders - Entry and sealing are ministerial functions performed in aid of the judicial act - Perfection of a settled order may not be withheld or postponed pending the payment of an allocatur fee as no such condition is prescribed by law (Paras 12, 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
Following a trial, the Court ordered the winding up of the second defendant and issued mutual costs awards of RM100,000.00 (one in favor of the plaintiff and another in favor of the third to sixth defendants collectively), which were ordered to be set off. Disputes arose during the perfection of the Order regarding whether the fourth defendant, who was joined nominally and unrepresented, remained a party and was entitled to be named in the costs award, and whether the payment of an allocatur fee was a prerequisite for the entry and sealing of the Order.

Findings of Court:
The fourth defendant remains a party of record despite being a nominal defendant and unrepresented. The collective costs award is a judicial act that cannot be rewritten during the settlement process. No allocatur fee is payable because the mutual set-off eliminates the need for a certificate of enforcement. The Registry cannot withhold the sealing of the Order for want of such a fee.

Issues: 1. Whether a nominally joined and unrepresented defendant remains a party and entitled to be named in a collective costs award. 2. Whether an allocatur fee is payable where costs are mutually set off. 3. Whether the entry and sealing of a settled order may be postponed pending payment of an allocatur fee.

Ratio Decidendi: Status as a party is governed by the record and specific rules of joinder, not descriptive labels like "nominal defendant." Ministerial functions of the Registry (entry and sealing) cannot condition or suspend the operation of a judicial act (judgment). Since the allocatur fee is specifically tied to the issuance of a certificate, and no certificate is necessary when costs are extinguished by set-off, the fee is not exigible.

Result: Order for perfection of the settled Order forthwith, maintaining the fourth defendant as a party and ruling that no allocatur fee is presently payable.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Supplementary ruling to resolve status of nominal defendant and allocatur fee before perfection of trial judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )

2. Whether nominal defendant remains party; whether allocatur fee payable before perfection. (Para 2 , 8 )

3. Fourth Defendant remains party; no allocatur fee payable due to set-off; perfection to proceed forthwith. (Para 33 , 34 )

4. Does a nominal defendant cease to be a party of record?

No, a descriptive label does not alter status; a party remains until removed by amendment, discontinuance, or final judgment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )

5. Is an allocatur fee payable when costs awards are mutually set off?

No, the fee is a condition for issuing a certificate; no certificate is required when set-off extinguishes both awards. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )

6. May entry and sealing of an order be withheld for want of an allocatur fee?

No, perfection is ministerial and not conditioned on allocatur; the rules do not permit withholding for a fee not annexed by law. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )

[1] On 15.07.2026, this Court pronounced judgment in open court in this action, following a full trial. The orders pronounced are recorded, expressly and comprehensively, in the operative paragraphs [500] to [505] of the grounds of judgment of even date. The solicitors having been unable to agree upon the terms of the draft Order, the dispute was referred to this Court under Order 42 rule 8(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the ROC 2012"), and by a ruling delivered on 05.08.2026 this Court settled the terms of the Order and gave peremptory directions for its preparation, entry and sealing ("the settlement ruling").

[2] The Order has nevertheless not been perfected. Two matters have since been referred to this Court as standing in the way of perfection: first, the status of the Fourth Defendant in this action; and secondly, whether any allocatur fee is payable upon the costs ordered. The second matter, as referred, necessarily comprises a third and consequential question: a question whether a fee is payable before the Order may be entered, sealed and perfected is, in substance, also a question whether entry and sealing may be withheld for want of it. All three questions admit of determination on the record, and are determined finally in this ruling. This supplementary ruling proceeds accordingly, so that the perfection of the Order may go forward without further interruption.

[3] The character of this exercise is the same as that of the settlement ruling. It is one of memorialisation, not adjudication. Nothing in this ruling revisits the merits, enlarges or diminishes any relief, or alters any term pronounced on 15.07.2026. The single touchstone remains fidelity to the orders as pronounced.

B. MATERIAL FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] The trial of this action commenced before the learned Judge of High Court 1, Melaka, on 12.12.2023 and 13.12.2023, and was continued on numerous dates through 2024 and 2025. Upon the elevation of the matter to this Court, the continued trial proceeded before this Court in 2026, and the decision was delivered in open court on 15.07.2026 in the presence of counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the First, Third, Fifth and Sixth Defendants. The Second and Fourth Defendants were not represented by solicitors and took no active part in the proceedings. Written submissions, including the submissions on costs contemplated by Order 59 rule 7(2) of the ROC 2012, were filed and considered before the decision was delivered.

[5] Among the orders pronounced on 15.07.2026, the following are material to the present matters:

(i) upon the alternative prayer at paragraph 40(23) of the Statement of Claim, and under section 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016, the Second Defendant, Sung Hock

Chan Sdn Bhd, was ordered to be wound up by the Court on the just and equitable ground;

(ii) as between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant, the First Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff the costs of this action fixed globally in the sum of RM100,000.00;

(iii) as between the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant, there was to be no order as to costs;

(iv) the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants the costs of this action in the sum of RM100,000.00 in the aggregate, the award being to those Defendants collectively, with no allocation of the aggregate sum among them individually; and

(v) the parties were given liberty to set off the sum payable under

(iv) against the sum payable under (ii), the practical effect being that the two awards extinguish one another and no payment passes between the parties.

[6] In the settlement ruling, this Court rejected, among other proposed amendments, a description that confined the Defendants entitled to costs to the "Third to Fourth" Defendants: the award pronounced was held to be in favour of the Third to Sixth Defendants collectively, and not confined to any subset of them. The costs paragraphs were settled in those terms, and directions were given for the filing o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 MarsdenLR 1814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MELAKA
RAJA SEGARAN A/L S.KRISHNAN, JC
SUNG TIAK KENG – Plaintiff
Versus
SIANG TIAK HOCK – Defendant
CIVIL SUIT NO: MA-22NCvC-5-01/2020

A nominal, unrepresented defendant remains a party of record. An allocatur fee is only payable upon issuance of a certificate; where mutual set-off eliminates the need for enforcement, no fee is required, and the perfection of the court order cannot be withheld for such payment.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does a nominal defendant cease to be a party of record?

5. Is an allocatur fee payable when costs awards are mutually set off?

6. May entry and sealing of an order be withheld for want of an allocatur fee?

2026 MarsdenLR 1814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MELAKARAJA SEGARAN A/L S.KRISHNAN, JCSUNG TIAK KENG – PlaintiffVersusSIANG TIAK HOCK – DefendantCIVIL SUIT NO: MA-22NCvC-5-01/2020

A nominal, unrepresented defendant remains a party of record. An allocatur fee is only payable upon issuance of a certificate; where mutual set-off eliminates the need for enforcement, no fee is required, and the perfection of the court order cannot be withheld for such payment.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does a nominal defendant cease to be a party of record?

5. Is an allocatur fee payable when costs awards are mutually set off?

6. May entry and sealing of an order be withheld for want of an allocatur fee?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MELAKA
RAJA SEGARAN A/L S.KRISHNAN, JC
SUNG TIAK KENG – Plaintiff
Versus
SIANG TIAK HOCK – Defendant
CIVIL SUIT NO: MA-22NCvC-5-01/2020