Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 23 rules of court 2012

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2025

OO TIN FUAN 1. ) LIM LEE CHING Guru Besar Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina) Chin Woo Kuala Lumpur merangkap Setiausaha Lembaga Pengurus 2. ) CHEONG KAM YIN (Bekas Guru Besar Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina) Chin Woo Kuala Lumpur merangkap Seti

Citation

WA-21NCvC-36-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-36-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 23 r 1 and inherent jurisdiction, finding the plaintiff an undischarged bankrupt who failed to show ability to pay and that defendants had a prima facie sustainable defence and reasonable grounds; accordingly the application for security for costs was allowed: plaintiff ordered to pay RM6,000 to Attorney-General's Chambers within 30 days and to lodge security of RM20,000 into Court within 30 days, with writ and statement of claim to be struck out if security not furnished prior to trial; no order as to costs.
16 Oct 2025

SELVARAJAN A/L VEERIAH 1. ) BANGSAR AMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 2. ) KARTHIGASU A/L K. RATNASINGAM 3. ) FOO JIA-HOU 4. ) ANG LING LING 5. ) ADRIAN HO TUCK DJI 6. ) RUBAN SATKUNA NATHAN 7. ) PLANET GARDENS SDN BHD 8. ) LIEW TZE HANN 9. ) ISA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-777-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-777-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff was found to be ordinarily resident in Melbourne since 2005, had not demonstrated accessible assets in Malaysia (apartment encumbered to AIA Berhad), and failed to properly disclose his foreign address; therefore, exercising the court's discretion under Order 23 r.1 Rules of Court 2012, the plaintiff must furnish security for costs (RM50,000 to each of the specified defendants) or face striking out and the action remains stayed until compliance.
5 May 2025

Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Dato Sri Suresh Emmanuel Abishegam 2. ) Dato Ahmad Johari Bin Abdul Razak 3. ) Ajaib Hari Dass 4. ) Dato Abd Latiff Bin Ahmad 5. ) Jaya Sudhir A/L Jayaram 6. ) Mak Lin Kum 7. ) Ahmad Lutfi Bin Abd Latiff

Citation

WA-22NCC-403-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-403-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for security for costs against Timor was dismissed because Order 23 of the Rules of Court 2012 permits security only against the named plaintiff and does not extend to non‑parties such as an applicant who merely obtained leave to bring a derivative action; no exceptional circumstances or impropriety were proven to justify invoking the Court's power to make a non‑party costs order and the proper forum to seek security in respect of the derivative action was the court that granted leave under s350 Companies Act 2016.
5 May 2025

Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Dato Sri Suresh Emmanuel Abishegam 2. ) Dato Ahmad Johari Bin Abdul Razak 3. ) Ajaib Hari Dass 4. ) Dato Abd Latiff Bin Ahmad 5. ) Jaya Sudhir A/L Jayaram 6. ) Mak Lin Kum 7. ) Ahmad Lutfi Bin Abd Latiff

Citation

WA-22NCC-403-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-403-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for security for costs against the derivative applicant (Timor) was dismissed because Order 23 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides for security against the named plaintiff only (the company), Timor is not a party notwithstanding his control of the derivative proceedings, there are no exceptional circumstances to justify making a non-party personally liable for costs at this stage, and any request for security for a derivative applicant should have been sought under the leave proceedings and the Court's powers under the Companies Act.
5 May 2025

Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Dato Sri Suresh Emmanuel Abishegam 2. ) Dato Ahmad Johari Bin Abdul Razak 3. ) Ajaib Hari Dass 4. ) Dato Abd Latiff Bin Ahmad 5. ) Jaya Sudhir A/L Jayaram 6. ) Mak Lin Kum 7. ) Ahmad Lutfi Bin Abd Latiff

Citation

WA-22NCC-403-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-403-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application is dismissed because Order 23 permits security for costs only against the named plaintiff in the proceedings and Timor is not the named plaintiff but a derivative litigant; defendants failed to show exceptional circumstances necessary to impose personal liability on a non-party; any application regarding Timor's liability or security should have been pursued before the court that granted leave under Companies Act s350; therefore security against Timor is not just in the circumstances and the application fails.
7 Mar 2025

KENSINGTON GROUP MANAGEMENT LIMITED DATO CHEW HUN SENG PENCELAH 1. ) TAN SRI LEE KIM TIONG @ LEE KIM YEW 2. ) CHUA HEE BOON

Citation

BA-22NCC-71-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-71-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to establish a proper basis under Order 23 r.1 and inconsistent reliance on lack of jurisdiction undermined the application; the court exercised its discretion having regard to all circumstances and held that mere foreign incorporation and the assertions made did not justify ordering security for costs, thus dismissing the application with costs to the plaintiff.
6 Mar 2025

3Q RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD 1. ) MAGNUM CONSORTIUM SDN BHD 2. ) SOLIDWIN PROPERTY SDN BHD 3. ) HONG YEAM WAH 4. ) TEOH HAI HIN 5. ) KHAW TIEW CHAI 6. ) CHEN MUN HENG 7. ) Lee Chai Seng

Citation

PA-22NCvC-182-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-182-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendants failed to discharge the statutory burden under Section 580A: their evidence (SSM searches, shareholder bankruptcies) was insufficiently cogent to establish a reason to believe the plaintiff could not pay costs; the defendants' application was inordinate delayed (>6 years) and therefore lacked reasonable promptitude; the plaintiff rebutted impecuniosity with prior payments and a substantive appellate win indicating triable issues; on this basis the applications for security for costs (Enclosures 174 and 176) are dismissed.
9 May 2024

U-LI AUTO PARTS & SERVICE SDN BHD HANBANG ALUMINIUM INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD PENCELAH LIM TECK MING PENCELAH DICADANGKAN 1. ) Tan Kok Keong 2. ) Zeta Water Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-46-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-46-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found credible evidence that the plaintiff is controlled by foreign shareholder and director without permanent Malaysian address, has not filed financial reports, has no demonstrable assets within the jurisdiction and its business operations have ceased; therefore there is a real risk defendants would be unable to recover costs if successful. Exercising discretion under Order 23 ROC 2012 and section 580A CA 2016, the court ordered security for costs of RM50,000 for each of Enclosures 20 and 33, to be deposited within 30 days, with failure leading to striking out of the counterclaim, and…
9 May 2024

1. ) MEGA FOREST PLANTATION MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) MEGAFORES NURSERY SDN. BHD. (Dalam Penggulungan) 3. ) MEGA-FORESTINDAH PAYA SDN. BHD. 4. ) MEGA-FORESTERNAK SDN. BHD. 5. ) MEGAFOREST IDEAL FEED SDN. BHD. 6. ) MEGA FOREST PLANTATION SDN

Citation

BA-21NCvC-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under s580A Companies Act 2016 and Order 23 rule 1 and found the application for security for costs by the 4th and 5th defendants had no merit: the affidavits and SSM searches did not justify ordering security, the application risked penalising plaintiffs and denying access to justice, and there was no sufficient justification to order RM300,000 or any security. Accordingly the application was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
10 Oct 2023

BM CITY REALTY AND CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 1. ) MERGER INSIGHT BUILDERS SDN. BHD. 2. ) MERGER INSIGHT (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

PA-22NCvC-158-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-158-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Credible and compelling evidence (unpaid prior costs orders and company financials showing significant accumulated losses and recent losses) established a reason to believe the plaintiff company would be unable or unwilling to pay defendants’ costs; accordingly the court ordered security for costs: RM150,000 to be paid to D1's solicitors as stakeholders and RM75,000 to be paid to D2's solicitors as stakeholders with detailed stakeholder and release conditions, an interim stay in relation to D1 until payment, costs of RM7,000 awarded to each defendant, and refusal to grant an immediate Unless…