DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & 2 LAGI

DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & 2 LAGI

Application dismissed because applicant failed to produce credible evidence (eg audited accounts) to demonstrate the plaintiff company would be unable to pay defendants' costs; being subject to winding up proceedings alone is insufficient and the plaintiff presented evidence of ongoing business and receivables negating the need for security for costs.

Citation
WA-22C-104-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD; First Defendant: MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD; Second Defendant: DATO’ SERI WONG YEON CHAI; Third Defendant: BUILTAMONT INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Case Number
WA-22C-104-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Construction Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Winding Up, Corporate Veil/alter Ego
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Construction Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Winding Up Corporate Veil/alter Ego

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD

Plaintiff

MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

First Defendant

DATO’ SERI WONG YEON CHAI

Second Defendant

BUILTAMONT INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Construction Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff company
  2. 2 Whether being subject to winding up proceedings suffices to justify security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the defendant produced credible evidence to show the plaintiff will be unable to pay costs

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because applicant failed to produce credible evidence (eg audited accounts) to demonstrate the plaintiff company would be unable to pay defendants' costs; being subject to winding up proceedings alone is insufficient and the plaintiff presented evidence of ongoing business and receivables negating the need for security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs reserved