TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ BIN ZAIN & 2 ORS V UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD & 2 ORS

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ BIN ZAIN & 2 ORS V UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD & 2 ORS

The court declined to order security for costs under s.351, exercising its discretion on the facts: long-standing litigation with multiple applications and pending appeals, the plaintiffs' claim and defences had been held sustainable by higher courts, ordering security would likely stifle a bona fide claim, and there was no evidence the first plaintiff (alter ego) could not meet costs if ordered later; therefore defendants were not prejudiced and the applications were dismissed.

Citation
TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ BIN ZAIN & 2 ORS V UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD & 2 ORS
Parties
Plaintiffs: Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zain & Ors; 1st Defendant: United Overseas Land Ltd (1st Defendant); 2nd & 3rd Defendants: 2nd & 3rd Defendants
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Under S.351 Companies Act (applications Heard Together; Appeals and Other Interlocutory Applications Pending)
Outcome
Applications for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Companies Act S.351, Discretion of Court, Impecuniosity, Delay, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Companies Act S.351 Discretion of Court Impecuniosity Delay +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zain & Ors

Plaintiffs

United Overseas Land Ltd (1st Defendant)

1st Defendant

2nd & 3rd Defendants

2nd & 3rd Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Under S.351 Companies Act (applications Heard Together; Appeals and Other Interlocutory Applications Pending)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against plaintiff companies under s.351 Companies Act 1965
  2. 2 Which legal test applies: unfettered discretion to be exercised in all circumstances or a consistent approach/predisposition favoring defendant
  3. 3 What factors (bona fides, prospects, delay, conduct of parties, prejudice to defendants) should determine the exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to order security for costs under s.351, exercising its discretion on the facts: long-standing litigation with multiple applications and pending appeals, the plaintiffs' claim and defences had been held sustainable by higher courts, ordering security would likely stifle a bona fide claim, and there was no evidence the first plaintiff (alter ego) could not meet costs if ordered later; therefore defendants were not prejudiced and the applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for security for costs dismissed with costs