PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN CITY PLAZA SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN CITY PLAZA SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD

Court of Appeal allowed the Defendant’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s security for costs order because the learned Judicial Commissioner legally erred by failing to consider relevant matters—specifically the Defendant’s arbitration claim, its bona fides and prospects of success—which are material to an order for security for costs; therefore the exercise of discretion was wrong and the arbitral proceedings shall continue; costs RM5,000 awarded to Defendant.

Citation
J-02(C)(A)-2437-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Perbadanan Pengurusan City Plaza; Respondent: Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 May 2023
Case Number
J-02(C)(A)-2437-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (security for Costs Under Arbitration Act 2005) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 28.11.2021 for security for costs set aside.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Merits Assessment in Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Security for Costs Impecuniosity Exercise of Judicial Discretion Enforcement of Adjudication Decision +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perbadanan Pengurusan City Plaza

Appellant

Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (security for Costs Under Arbitration Act 2005) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in ordering security for costs without considering the merits and bona fides of the Defendant’s arbitration claim
  2. 2 Whether impecuniosity alone justifies security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of discretion by the High Court was legally wrong for ignoring relevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

Court of Appeal allowed the Defendant’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s security for costs order because the learned Judicial Commissioner legally erred by failing to consider relevant matters—specifically the Defendant’s arbitration claim, its bona fides and prospects of success—which are material to an order for security for costs; therefore the exercise of discretion was wrong and the arbitral proceedings shall continue; costs RM5,000 awarded to Defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 28.11.2021 for security for costs set aside.

Orders

  • Order of learned Judicial Commissioner dated 28.11.2021 set aside
  • Defendant’s (Perbadanan) appeal allowed