COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD

COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD

Because the plaintiff failed to comply with clear peremptory unless orders to deposit RM100,000.00 each as security for costs, provided no mitigation, and had a demonstrated history and circumstances supporting enforcement, the court lawfully exercised its inherent and rule‑based powers to dismiss the proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 and to award costs; dismissal was proportionate and justified under the authorities cited.

Citation
JA-22NCvC-5-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Cosmic Master Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant 1: Hong Xin Construction Sdn Bhd; Defendant 2: Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 February 2024
Case Number
JA-22NCvC-5-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Writ / Judgment on Enforcement of Unless Order After Case Management; Appeal Filed Against Cancellation Order
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed/cancelled against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 by enforcement of the unless order
Legal Topics
Unless Order, Security for Costs, Strike Out/dismissal for Non Compliance, Compliance With Court Orders, Remittal From Court of Appeal
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Court Costs Inherent Jurisdiction Unless Order Security for Costs Strike Out/dismissal for Non Compliance Compliance With Court Orders +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cosmic Master Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Hong Xin Construction Sdn Bhd

Defendant 1

Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad

Defendant 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Writ / Judgment on Enforcement of Unless Order After Case Management; Appeal Filed Against Cancellation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unless order should be enforced to dismiss the plaintiff's action for non-compliance
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's failure to comply was intentional and contumelious
  3. 3 Whether dismissal without further opportunity to comply was justified on the facts

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff failed to comply with clear peremptory unless orders to deposit RM100,000.00 each as security for costs, provided no mitigation, and had a demonstrated history and circumstances supporting enforcement, the court lawfully exercised its inherent and rule‑based powers to dismiss the proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 and to award costs; dismissal was proportionate and justified under the authorities cited.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed/cancelled against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 by enforcement of the unless order

Orders

  • Plaintiff to have deposited RM100000.00 to each Defendant as security for costs by or before 3.2.2024 (original peremptory order)
  • Proceedings are cancelled with immediate effect against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 for failure to comply with the unless order dated 14.1.2024