Defending Our Singapore-Based Client Against Security for Costs Applications

In a recent appeal, the Kuala Lumpur High Court upheld the Senior Assistant Registrar’s decision to dismiss the Defendants’ application for Security for Costs (SFC) with costs. This decision reaffirms that our courts will not grant SFC as a matter of course against a foreign plaintiff, but only if it is deemed just based on the case’s specific circumstances. The principles surrounding SFC are therefore particularly crucial.

In this case, our Jonathan Khaw represented the foreign plaintiff (“our Client”) who successfully resisted the appeal.

Case Background

Our Client initiated proceedings to recover approximately SGD 2 million, alleging that the Defendants committed fraud. The Defendants sought SFC amounting to RM200,000 based on the following grounds:

  • Our Client is a foreign litigant.
  • Our Client has no assets in Malaysia.
  • RM200,000 is fair and reasonable.

Jonathan Khaw argued that our Client had a reasonable chance of success and that the claim for additional security was oppressive, given that our Client had already lost SGD 2 million.

Court’s Decision

The High Court dismissed the Defendants’ application with costs.

While the Court has discretion to order SFC, this discretion must be exercised justly, considering the case’s circumstances. In this instance, the Court acknowledged the foreign residency and lack of assets in Malaysia but clarified that these factors alone were insufficient to justify SFC. The Defendants failed to provide compelling reasons for their application.

The Court noted that:

  1. Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (REJA): Malaysia and Singapore have a mutual agreement allowing for the enforcement of judgments, meaning the Defendants could seek recourse in Singapore if needed.
  2. Financial Standing: The business profile report did not indicate that our Client was in poor financial condition or that there was a risk of the Defendants not recovering costs if the claim was dismissed.

The Court concluded that the Defendants did not meet the burden of proving that they would be unable to recover costs. It agreed with Jonathan Khaw that the application was likely intended to stifle our Client’s genuine claim.

Final Words

The High Court’s ruling underscores the necessity of providing clear evidence when making or opposing an SFC application. The Defendants were ordered to pay costs, and their appeal was dismissed. This case highlights the importance of presenting solid evidence to support claims or defenses regarding Security for Costs.

Speak To Us

To discuss any points raised in this article or to request a copy of the reported case, please contact us at +603 6419 9511 or email us at info@chernco.com.my.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For further information, please reach out to our Kuala Lumpur office.

5/5

Share:

More Posts

The Court of Appeal Grants Leave for Our Client’s Appeal: Employment Law Dispute

Recently, the Court of Appeal, comprising The Hon. Justice Datuk See Mee Chun, Hon. Justice Datuk Azhahari Kamal, and Hon. Justice Datuk Wong Kian Kheong, granted leave for our Client to appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision. This development is crucial to our Client’s business operations moving forward. Our Mr. Jonathan K, acted

Finalist in Thomson Reuters’ ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2024

We are pleased to share that ‘CHERN & CO.’ has been named a Finalist for ‘Rising Law Firm of the Year’ in the Law Firm Category. The Thomson Reuters’ ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2024 will recognize the outstanding performance of law firms and in-house teams in Malaysia. The event will bring together leading lawyers and

Our Client Secures Successful Outcome in Lawyer Negligent Case

This case concerns our Client’s successful professional negligence claim against a lawyer. It is a cautionary tale of the consequences of failing to follow a client’s instructions. Whilst the case concerns lawyers, it applies to professional advisers of any specialism. In this case, the Court ruled in our Client’s favour, finding that the said lawyer

Send Us A Message