Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ordinary residence

Legal area

Court

15 May 2025

BIMAL PILLAI 1. ) BRB MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) BRB INTERNATIONAL B. V. 3. ) PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD 4. ) NIK AMRI BIN NIK MOHAMED 5. ) PAUL ANTHONY TAYLOR 6. ) AMRI BIN RAZALI

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1953-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1953-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Security for costs was ordered because on the uncontested evidence (after striking out the defective affidavit) the plaintiff is an Indian national ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, admitted inability to pay, produced no proof of assets or immigration status in Malaysia, and there was a real risk defendants could not enforce costs abroad; exercising judicial discretion under Order 23 r 1(1) the court found it just to order RM25,000 security per application and costs of RM6,000 per application with striking out on non-payment.
13 Feb 2024

SIT KIM HUNG RONNIE 1. ) IAN MICHAEL HAMPTON 2. ) TETUAN FAUZI NGAH & NEASA

Citation

WA-23NCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the Plaintiff was found to be ordinarily resident in Malaysia (so O.23 r.1(a) did not apply) and, even if treated as foreign, the court would nevertheless refuse security after considering all circumstances: the Plaintiff's claim is bona fide (Divorce Decree set aside), the application was potentially oppressive, and there exist matrimonial assets and avenues for enforcement (including reciprocal enforcement in Hong Kong) that mitigate the defendant's risk of non-recovery of costs.
15 Aug 2023

LIM SIM EE 1. ) DSI NORTHERN SOURCE SDN BHD 2. ) LOO SAY HOCK 3. ) Datuk Ng Kwok Siong

Citation

BA-22NCC-61-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-61-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff is a Singapore citizen who failed to provide credible evidence of ordinary residence in Malaysia or ownership of assets within the jurisdiction and failed to prove financial capacity to meet potential costs; exercising the Court's discretion under Order 23 r.1 ROC 2012 it is just to order security for costs of RM40,000 payable within 21 days, failing which the suit will be dismissed, and defendants awarded costs of RM5,000.
13 Sept 2021

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Norzi Nazri for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Goh Rafidah Tan] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Sreether Sundaram and Narandra Kangatharan for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor [Messrs. Murali B Pillai & Associates]

Citation

DALAM PERKARA KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-626-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DALAM PERKARA KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-626-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The creditor failed to prove on the required basis that the debtor was domiciled in Malaysia or had ordinarily resided or had a dwelling house or place of business in Malaysia or had carried on business or been a member of a firm within one year before presentation of the petition as required by section 5(1)(d); accordingly the creditor had no right to present the petition and the debtor's application to set aside the petition succeeds.

Malaysia Case Law

BIMAL PILLAI 1. ) BRB MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) BRB INTERNATIONAL B. V. 3. ) PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD 4. ) NIK AMRI BIN NIK MOHAMED 5. ) PAUL ANTHONY TAYLOR 6. ) AMRI BIN RAZALI

SIT KIM HUNG RONNIE 1. ) IAN MICHAEL HAMPTON 2. ) TETUAN FAUZI NGAH & NEASA

LIM SIM EE 1. ) DSI NORTHERN SOURCE SDN BHD 2. ) LOO SAY HOCK 3. ) Datuk Ng Kwok Siong

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Norzi Nazri for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Goh Rafidah Tan] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Sreether Sundaram and Narandra Kangatharan for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor [Messrs. Murali B Pillai & Associates]