ABS SOLUTION (S) PTE LTD 1. ) LIM TECK HOE 2. ) EE KAI XIN

ABS SOLUTION (S) PTE LTD 1. ) LIM TECK HOE 2. ) EE KAI XIN

Defendants' application was dismissed because they failed to discharge the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities a real risk that they would be unable to recover costs from the foreign plaintiff; the plaintiff's claim had sufficient prima facie basis and the availability of reciprocal enforcement against Singapore reduced the asserted risk, making security unjust and oppressive.

Citation
WA-22NCC-178-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: ABS SOLUTION (S) PTE LTD; Defendant: LIM TECK HOE; Defendant: EE KAI XIN trading as M CAN ENTERPRISE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCC-178-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Division / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)
Outcome
Defendants' application for security for costs dismissed; preliminary objection dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Burden of Proof, Foreign Litigant, Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments, Oppression/stifling of Claims
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Evidence Conflict of Laws / Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Security for Costs Burden of Proof Foreign Litigant Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABS SOLUTION (S) PTE LTD

Plaintiff

LIM TECK HOE

Defendant

EE KAI XIN trading as M CAN ENTERPRISE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Division / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign plaintiff with no assets in Malaysia
  2. 2 Whether the defendants discharged the burden to prove a real risk of non-recovery of costs
  3. 3 Whether the application is oppressive or intended to stifle a genuine claim

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants' application was dismissed because they failed to discharge the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities a real risk that they would be unable to recover costs from the foreign plaintiff; the plaintiff's claim had sufficient prima facie basis and the availability of reciprocal enforcement against Singapore reduced the asserted risk, making security unjust and oppressive.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for security for costs dismissed; preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed
  • Application for security for costs dismissed