Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 580a companies act 2016

Legal area

Court

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.
22 Jan 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)

Defendants failed to discharge the evidential burden under Section 580A because their evidence (SSM filings, shareholder bankruptcies) was insufficient and speculative, the application was inordinate delayed, and Plaintiff produced evidence (previous payments and sums owed to Plaintiff) rebutting impecuniosity; accordingly security for costs was not justified and applications 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)

Court exercised discretion under section 580A and Order 23 rule 1, found the defendants' evidence did not justify awarding security for costs: plaintiffs are Malaysian resident companies (not foreign), the SSM evidence and submissions did not meet threshold to show plaintiffs unable to pay, and ordering security would be unjust or oppressive; accordingly applications for security were dismissed and no costs awarded.
2 Feb 2024

1. ) TAN SEE MENG 2. ) TAN SEE NONG 3. ) LIM PECK HONG 4. ) SAWIT RAYA SDN. BHD. 5. ) KIAN HUAT OILMILLS SDN. BHD. ABLE OILS & FATS SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1240-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1240-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Security for costs was ordered only against the Fourth and Fifth Appellants because credible evidence showed they were impecunious (Fourth under judicial management, Fifth dormant with land that may form part of disputed subject matter) and therefore likely unable to pay costs; the First to Third Appellants did not meet Order 23 thresholds and impecuniosity alone was insufficient to justify security against them; prior notice is not mandatory under s44 CJA and r17 RCA and RM50,000 in total was a fair and reasonable security for the three interlocutory appeals.
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…
24 Aug 2021

1. ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. [Company No: 201401009891 (1085970-T)] 2. MARSLAND DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. [Company No: 201401011437 (1087513-W)] 1. TANG TWANG LOI 2. LAU TENG TIONG

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-30-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-30-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 580A and the Court's inherent jurisdiction authorize ordering security for costs against the appellants; CCM company searches showing significant net losses together with appellants' failure to pay prior judgments amounted to credible testimony that they would likely be unable to pay the respondents' costs if unsuccessful, thus justifying an exercise of discretion to order security of MYR20,000 to be paid within 28 days; Order 18 r19 did not permit striking out a notice of application and the appellants' strike out application was dismissed as duplicative and an abuse of process.