AETHIRAJU A/L E. SAMUEL EAPEN THOMAS A/L K. THOMAS SLYVESTER DEVARAJ A/L ANTHONY

AETHIRAJU A/L E. SAMUEL EAPEN THOMAS A/L K. THOMAS SLYVESTER DEVARAJ A/L ANTHONY

Exhibit A and supporting affidavit demonstrated a real risk the plaintiff would be unable to pay defendants' costs; although the plaintiff did not strictly meet categories in Order 23, the court exercised its inherent power under Order 92 to prevent injustice and ordered security for costs; the discovery request was dismissed as irrelevant to the libel claim.

Citation
WA-23NCVC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: AETHIRAJU A/L E. SAMUEL; Defendant: EAPEN THOMAS A/L K. THOMAS; Defendant: SLYVESTER DEVARAJ A/L ANTHONY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 July 2020
Case Number
WA-23NCVC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory – Application for Security for Costs and Discovery
Outcome
Application for security for costs allowed; plaintiff ordered to pay RM50,000 into court before proceeding; plaintiff's application for discovery dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Order 23 Rules of Court 2012, Inherent Powers of the Court, Discovery Relevance
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Security for Costs Order 23 Rules of Court 2012 Inherent Powers of the Court Discovery Relevance

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AETHIRAJU A/L E. SAMUEL

Plaintiff

EAPEN THOMAS A/L K. THOMAS

Defendant

SLYVESTER DEVARAJ A/L ANTHONY

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory – Application for Security for Costs and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff under Order 23 Rules of Court 2012 or by exercise of the court's inherent powers
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's request for discovery of the club resolution is relevant to the libel claim

Ratio Decidendi

Exhibit A and supporting affidavit demonstrated a real risk the plaintiff would be unable to pay defendants' costs; although the plaintiff did not strictly meet categories in Order 23, the court exercised its inherent power under Order 92 to prevent injustice and ordered security for costs; the discovery request was dismissed as irrelevant to the libel claim.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs allowed; plaintiff ordered to pay RM50,000 into court before proceeding; plaintiff's application for discovery dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay RM50,000 into Court before proceeding with the case
  • Plaintiff's application for discovery of the club resolution dismissed