DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & DUA LAGI

DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & DUA LAGI

The applications for security for costs were dismissed because the court, exercising its discretion, found that a winding up status did not automatically require security; given the advanced stage of trial, credible prospect of success, late timing of the applications and the fact the winding up was initiated by the third defendant in a related dispute (risking stifling a genuine claim), it was not just to order security.

Citation
WA-22C-104-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Dirijohan Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Multazam Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Dato' Seri Wong Yeon Chai; Defendant: Builtamont International Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Case Number
WA-22C-104-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Construction Contract Dispute / Security for Costs Applications Heard at Tail End of Trial (trial Near Completion)
Outcome
Applications for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Winding Up, Access to Justice, Court Discretion Over Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Companies Law Construction Law Insolvency Law Security for Costs Winding Up Access to Justice Court Discretion Over Costs

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

Parties

Dirijohan Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Multazam Development Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Dato' Seri Wong Yeon Chai

Defendant

Builtamont International Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Construction Contract Dispute / Security for Costs Applications Heard at Tail End of Trial (trial Near Completion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a wound-up company is automatically required to provide security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs at a late stage of trial
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would operate oppressively or stifle a genuine claim

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for security for costs were dismissed because the court, exercising its discretion, found that a winding up status did not automatically require security; given the advanced stage of trial, credible prospect of success, late timing of the applications and the fact the winding up was initiated by the third defendant in a related dispute (risking stifling a genuine claim), it was not just to order security.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • The Applications for security for costs are dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.