Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The fact that a company has been wound up or declared bankrupt is not automatically proof of inability to pay costs, but it is a relevant factor indicating potential insolvency. [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_1998_2_MLRH_319) states: the fact that a company has suffered the fate of being wound up... is not ipso facto proof of inability to pay costs.
Delay as a Disqualifying Factor - Main points and insights
However, some courts have found that delay alone is not necessarily fatal if there is no prejudice or tactical intent. ["TAN SEE MENG & ORS vs ABLE OILS & FATS SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS - Court Of Appeal"] and ["RHB BANK BHD vs BACTRA PROPERTIES SDN BHD & ORS (NO 2)"] mention that delay alone, especially if not inordinate or if the application is not made late, may not prevent granting security.
Merits and Other Considerations - Main points and insights
The prospect of success, while relevant, is not the sole determinant; the main focus remains on the applicant’s ability to pay if ordered. ["Customer Loyalty Solutions Sdn Bhd vs Advance Information Marketing Bhd & Anor"] notes that the prospect of success is a pertinent factor but not decisive.
Conclusion
In litigation, defendants often seek to protect against the risk of unpaid legal expenses if they prevail. But what happens when the application comes late in the proceedings? A common concern is whether can derail such an application. The answer, as established in Malaysian case law, is no— cannot and should not prevent the grant of security. The crucial factor remains the applicant's .
This principle offers reassurance to defendants while guiding courts in exercising their discretion judiciously. In this post, we'll explore the legal foundation, key cases, exceptions, and practical recommendations, drawing from authoritative precedents. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
For an , cannot and should not prevent the grant of security. The crucial factor is the inability to pay cost if awarded.
This statement encapsulates a consistent judicial stance in . While procedural timeliness matters, it is secondary to substantive evidence of financial risk.
Courts exercise discretion in ordering , with the being the plaintiff's inability to pay costs if ordered against them [
#SecurityForCosts, #CourtDiscretion, #LegalDelay
Put differently, even if it is able to pay the costs related to Suit 1, P is unwilling to pay the costs. As P has given no explanation for not paying the costs, it can only be seen as an inability to pay costs. ... [33] Second — I find that the element of delay is not a pertinent or cogent factor in the circumstances of this suit. ... However, I am of the view that making an imm....
However, the he does not say he is impecunious and does not assert that his claim would be stifled if he is ordered to pay security for costs. ... Delay per se is not a bar to an application for security for costs. But delay is a relevant consideration, particularly when it causes prejudice to the plaintiff. ... ’s claim on a stand-alone basis f....
basis for the Malaysian courts to hold that there would not be any real risk of the foreign company's refusal or failure to pay the eventual costs awarded if the foreign company eventually fails in its action here. ... As such, this Court will not delve into the details and complexities of the issues and disputes on merits or demerits of the case when considering this application for security for costs. ... As a corollary, difficulty of enforcement i....
for security for costs and that the Defendant’s/Appellant’s financial position alone would not warrant security for costs. ... Counsel further submitted that the learned JC was also in error in finding that the Defendant’s failure to pay the costs as ordered by the Court for earlier related matters between the parties is relevant to the application for security for costs. ... ’s said app....
for security for costs and that the Defendant's/Appellant's financial position alone would not warrant security for costs. ... cost. ... Instead, what was decided was that, in an application for security for costs, the Court should not embark on a detailed investigation into the merits. Merit is still relevant. ... The Counsel further submitted that the learned JC was also in error in finding that....
Delay is a crucial factor that militates against exercise of the Court's discretionary powers in favour of the Defendant seeking to compel the Plaintiff to provide security for costs. ... Firstly, the application for security for costs must be made with reasonable promptitude after the issue of the writ. Delay is a good reason for the Court to exercise discretion against the parties applying for security. ... The o....
Additionally, we do not find that the Respondent was lackadaisical which resulted in inordinate delay in the making of its application for security for costs in the circumstances herein. ... have yet to pay the past costs awarded to the Respondent in the High Court. ... In respect of the unpaid cost orders awarded to the Respondent in the High Court, the Appellants replied that they were not estab....
Therefore, in the final analysis, the question of merits is not really crucial to the ultimate outcome of this application. ... But it will also be concerned not to be so reluctant to order security that it becomes a weapon whereby the impecunious company can use its inability to pay costs as a means of putting unfair pressure on the more prosperous company (see Pearson v. ... 3) in the event the security for costs....
Therefore, in the final analysis, the question of merits is not really crucial to the ultimate outcome of this application. 3) in the event the security for costs is not paid the defence and counter claim dated 20 September 2010 is dismissed/struck out with no order as to cost. ... Firstly, the application for security for costs must be made with reasonable promptitude after the issue of the writ. Dela....
Therefore, in the final analysis, the question of merits is not really crucial to the ultimate outcome of this application. 3) in the event the security for costs is not paid the defence and counter claim dated 20 September 2010 is dismissed/struck out with no order as to cost. ... However I am of the opinion the sum of RM250,000 as security for costs is excessive. A sum of RM50,000 for security for ....
Undoubtedly, this is one factor which has to be borne in mind in considering whether and, if so to what extent, compensation for delay should be awarded.
The learned advocate representing the petitioner made a submission before the arbitral tribunal that in the event of the respondent herein failing to comply with the said order viz. The arbitral tribunal in the said meeting granted time to the respondent upto 19th August, 2014 for the purpose of filing an application for condonation of delay if they were so advised after paying cost of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner herein as cost condition precedent. to pay cost as condition precedent and thereafter to file an application for condonation of delay, the proceedings should be terminat....
They are asking for security for costs because they apprehend the plaintiff will not honour an order for cost. There is no reason to take out this notice of motion otherwise. Mr.Pratap submits that if the plaintiff is residing out of India, it is mandatory that security for cost should be awarded though the amount to be awarded should be at the discretion of this court. Moreover, the Order 25 Rule 1(i) provides that “the Court may either of its own motion or on the application of any defendant”. However, he submits that this provision also confers a discre....
Security cost of Rs. 2,000/- is made adjustable to the costs awarded by me.
The defendant has also filed an application for security for costs. The defendant has now filed an application for modification and/or modification of the ad interim orders and for stay of the trial of the suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
