The court has discretion to order security for costs against an out-of-jurisdiction plaintiff based on the case's circumstances.

Facts

[1] A bird's eye view of all the circumstances of the case.

[2] The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Dhanveer Enterprise and he trades under that name. The plaintiff is also the holder of a certificate from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India which certificate authorises him to carry on the business of recruitment for deployment of Indian workers overseas. The plaintiff's head office is said to be at number 30 G, Parveen Manzil, 2nd Floor, Bomanji Lane, Fort, Bombay 400001; while its branch office is at number 523, 1st Floor, NSK Nagar, Anna Nagar, Main Road, Madras 600106. In an affidavit affirmed on 28 July 1999 which was filed on 2 August 1999 as seen in encl 11 - which affidavit was deposed challenging the defendants' application for security for costs as seen in encl 7, the plaintiff proudly declared himself as an Indian citizen with an address at 7613213 (Sector VII), CGS Colony Antophill, Mumbai 400037, India.

[3] The first defendant is described as a company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 and having its registered office at 32nd Floor, Menara PNB, 201 A, Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur The second defendant is also a company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 and have its registered address just like that of the first defendant. It is said that the second defendant is wholly owned by the first defendant. It is also said that, at all material times, the first defendant was under the control and/or management and/or direction of the second defendant and with this in mind the first defendant is described as the agent of the second defendant.

[4] The second defendant as a sub-contractor secured a project with the cooperation of a consortium (styled as "MMCE-KEC Consortium") to design, erect, execute, complete and maintain as well as to instal 500 KV and 275 KV transmission lines for phase 1 and phase 1A together with a transmission system development of 500 KV for Tenaga Nasional Berhad. In short, that project was in reference to contract TNB no: 241/95 under package TA5 - Pasir Gudang - Plentong - Bukit Batu Yong Peng (N), Johor.

[5]An individual by the name of Mohammad Ali Daud ("Ali") was, at all times, described as the business development executive of the first defendant. Ali too was said to be appointed by the second defendant as the project manager of the abovementioned project. It is said that the defendant through Ali had approached the plaintiff for the purpose of recruiting workers in India to work in Malaysia for the said project. It was an alluring offer. The plaintiff grabbed hold of that offer. It is a paradise to work in Malaysia. As a melting pot, Malaysia attracts foreign workers be it labourers or professionals. The plaintiff agreed to become a recruiting agent for the defendants and to recruit workers for the defendants in Malaysia. As a recruiting agent, the plaintiff was entitled to collect the sum of 35,000 Indian rupees equivalent to approximately RM3,500 as his fees from each of the workers who would eventually be employed by the defendants. It was the stand of the plaintiff that the contract was confirmed by way of a documentation in the following terms:

(a) by a letter dated 16 April 1995 wherein the first defendant appointed the plaintiff to recruit Indian workers from India upon the terms as stated in that letter.

(b) the main terms of the recruitment were said to be as follows:

(i) that the recruited Indian workers would be employed for a period of two years;

(ii) that the recruited Indian workers would be provided with free accommodation and free medical care;

(iii) that free round trip air passages would be provid