P&A MANAGEMENT SDN BHD WSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

P&A MANAGEMENT SDN BHD WSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The Court exercised its discretion under s11 AA2005 read with s580A CA2016 and Rules of Court, found credible testimony (financial statements, bank confirmations, non-payment of adjudicated sum) establishing reason to believe the defendant would be unable to pay a successful plaintiff's costs, found the plaintiff's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-63-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: P & A MANAGEMENT SDN BHD; Defendant: WSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-63-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Aid of Arbitration; Enforcement of CIPAA Adjudication / Originating Summons; High Court Determination of Security for Costs Application
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interim Measures, Enforcement of Adjudication, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Procedural Orders
Arbitration Company Law Civil Procedure Construction Law Security for Costs Interim Measures Enforcement of Adjudication Concurrent Jurisdiction +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P & A MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Plaintiff

WSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Aid of Arbitration; Enforcement of CIPAA Adjudication / Originating Summons; High Court Determination of Security for Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court may order security for costs in support of arbitration under s11 Arbitration Act 2005 and s580A Companies Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether there was credible testimony that the defendant would be unable to pay costs if successful
  3. 3 Whether the deponent of the plaintiff's affidavits had locus to depose to the defendant's financial position

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion under s11 AA2005 read with s580A CA2016 and Rules of Court, found credible testimony (financial statements, bank confirmations, non-payment of adjudicated sum) establishing reason to believe the defendant would be unable to pay a successful plaintiff's costs, found the plaintiff's deponent had locus and no breach of the procedural order, and ordered security for costs of RM300,000 (reduced from RM500,000 requested) and costs RM3,000 to plaintiff subject to allocatur.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • Defendant ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of RM300000.00
  • If security not provided as ordered the arbitration proceedings shall be stayed as previously directed