Court DecisionMY-HCIn force

/akn/my/judgment/high-court/2026/7fb0bb0b-07bb-48be-892f-1531b5ffca91

Niro Ceramic Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd v Guocera Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024)

High Court of Malaysia8 May 2026BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Text

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO.: BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 BETWEEN 1)...

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO.: BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 BETWEEN 1) NIRO CERAMIC SALES & SERVICES

(M) SDN BHD (Company No. 199201016212/(247716-T) 2) FOSHAN NIRO CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIALS TRADING CO. LTD (Business Registration No. 440600400000552) ... PLAINTIFFS AND 1) GUOCERA SDN BHD (Company No. 197801000415 (37438-T) 2) CHENG LI YONG (NRIC No. 770624-02-5734) … DEFENDANTS 08/07/2026 10:03:00 BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 Kand. 130 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Enclosure 26 — 1st Defendant’s Application for Security for Costs A. Introduction

section

1. These are my grounds of decision for Enclosure 26. This was the 1st Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff...

1. These are my grounds of decision for Enclosure 26. This was the 1st Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiffs, filed under Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.

section

2. By Enclosure 26, the 1st Defendant sought security of RM65,000.00 from the 1st Plaintiff and RM65,000.00 from the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st...

2. By Enclosure 26, the 1st Defendant sought security of RM65,000.00 from the 1st Plaintiff and RM65,000.00 from the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant also sought a stay of the Plaintiffs’ proceedings if security was not furnished, liberty to apply for further security, and costs.

section

3.

section

33. Enclosure 26 was heard together with Enclosures 28, 31 and Although the applications arose from the same dispute and there was overlap...

33. Enclosure 26 was heard together with Enclosures 28, 31 and Although the applications arose from the same dispute and there was overlap in the affidavits and submissions, I considered Enclosure 26 separately because it was the 1st Defendant’s own application for security for costs.

section

4. This application required the Court to balance the 1st Defendant’s concern that it may not recover costs if it succeeds against the Plai...

4. This application required the Court to balance the 1st Defendant’s concern that it may not recover costs if it succeeds against the Plaintiffs’ right to pursue a commercial claim which **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 has not been shown to be a sham. That balancing exercise is central to the discretion under Order 23 rule 1 and section 580A.

section

5. In applications of this nature, the Court is mindful that a shield must not become a sword. Security for costs is meant to protect a Def...

5. In applications of this nature, the Court is mindful that a shield must not become a sword. Security for costs is meant to protect a Defendant against a real risk of unrecovered costs; it is not meant to place undue pressure on a Plaintiff before the claim is tried.

section

6. Having considered the affidavits, exhibits, written submissions, oral submissions and authorities relied upon by the parties, I dismisse...

6. Having considered the affidavits, exhibits, written submissions, oral submissions and authorities relied upon by the parties, I dismissed Enclosure 26. I awarded costs of RM4,000.00 to the Plaintiffs for this application, subject to allocatur, as part of the global costs of RM16,000.00 awarded for the four applications. B. Background

section

7. The Plaintiffs’ action concerns a commercial dispute involving allegations of employee solicitation, misuse of confidential information,...

7. The Plaintiffs’ action concerns a commercial dispute involving allegations of employee solicitation, misuse of confidential information, interference with business relations, conspiracy, and the effect of restrictive covenants. These issues arise from alleged dealings between the Defendants and employees or former employees connected to the Plaintiffs’ business.

section

8. The 1st Plaintiff, Niro Ceramic Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd, is a Malaysian company. The 2nd Plaintiff, Foshan Niro Ceramic Building Ma...

8. The 1st Plaintiff, Niro Ceramic Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd, is a Malaysian company. The 2nd Plaintiff, Foshan Niro Ceramic Building Materials Trading Co Ltd, is incorporated in the People’s Republic of China. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4

section

9. The 1st Defendant denies liability and has filed its Defence and Counterclaim. Among other matters, the 1st Defendant disputes the alleg...

9. The 1st Defendant denies liability and has filed its Defence and Counterclaim. Among other matters, the 1st Defendant disputes the allegations of solicitation, confidential information, interference, conspiracy, and the enforceability or effect of the restrictive covenant relied upon by the Plaintiffs.

section

10. Enclosure 26 was not an application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claim or to decide the merits of the action. The merits were relevant...

10. Enclosure 26 was not an application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claim or to decide the merits of the action. The merits were relevant only to the limited extent necessary for the Court to decide whether the claim appeared bona fide or whether the application for security was being used oppressively. C. The 1st Defendant’s case

section

11. The 1st Defendant’s application rested mainly on two matters. The first concerned the financial position of the 1st Plaintiff, while th...

11. The 1st Defendant’s application rested mainly on two matters. The first concerned the financial position of the 1st Plaintiff, while the second concerned the 2nd Plaintiff’s incorporation outside Malaysia.

section

12. As to the 1st Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant relied on audited financial statements and corporate documents. The 1st Defendant submitted...

12. As to the 1st Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant relied on audited financial statements and corporate documents. The 1st Defendant submitted that the 1st Plaintiff had suffered losses, that its liabilities exceeded its assets, that it had significant short-term borrowings, and that it would be unable to satisfy any adverse costs order.

section

13. As to the 2nd Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant submitted that the 2nd Plaintiff is incorporated in the People’s Republic of China and **Not...

13. As to the 2nd Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant submitted that the 2nd Plaintiff is incorporated in the People’s Republic of China and **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 has no known assets in Malaysia. The 1st Defendant further submitted that the People’s Republic of China is not a reciprocating country under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958.

section

14. The 1st Defendant argued that these matters gave rise to a real risk that it would not be able to recover its costs if it successfully...

14. The 1st Defendant argued that these matters gave rise to a real risk that it would not be able to recover its costs if it successfully defended the Plaintiffs’ claim. The 1st Defendant therefore asked the Court to order security in the total sum of RM130,000.00.

section

15. On the merits, the 1st Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs’ claim was weak. The 1st Defendant relied on matters including the alleg...

15. On the merits, the 1st Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs’ claim was weak. The 1st Defendant relied on matters including the alleged invalidity or unenforceability of the restraint clauses, the alleged public nature of the information relied upon, and the absence of actionable wrongdoing by the 1st Defendant. D. The Plaintiffs’ case

section

16. The Plaintiffs opposed Enclosure 26. They submitted that the application was misconceived, excessive and oppressive, and that there was...

16. The Plaintiffs opposed Enclosure 26. They submitted that the application was misconceived, excessive and oppressive, and that there was no credible evidence to support the belief that either Plaintiff would be unable to meet any costs order if the 1st Defendant succeeded.

section

17. The Plaintiffs submitted that the 1st Plaintiff was not an empty company. They relied on the existence of continuing business operation...

17. The Plaintiffs submitted that the 1st Plaintiff was not an empty company. They relied on the existence of continuing business operations, inventories, receivables, cash or banking facilities, **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 and trading activities to show that the 1st Plaintiff remained a commercial entity.

section

18. As to the 2nd Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs accepted that it is incorporated outside Malaysia. They submitted, however, that foreign incorp...

18. As to the 2nd Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs accepted that it is incorporated outside Malaysia. They submitted, however, that foreign incorporation alone does not compel an order for security because the Court must still decide whether it is just to make the order.

section

19. The Plaintiffs further submitted that their claim was bona fide and meritorious. They argued that the disputed issues concerning solici...

19. The Plaintiffs further submitted that their claim was bona fide and meritorious. They argued that the disputed issues concerning solicitation, confidential information, interference, conspiracy and restrictive covenants should be determined at trial and not in an application for security for costs.

section

20. The Plaintiffs also objected to the amount sought. They contended that RM130,000.00 was excessive, insufficiently justified, and should...

20. The Plaintiffs also objected to the amount sought. They contended that RM130,000.00 was excessive, insufficiently justified, and should be considered together with Enclosure 31, where the 2nd Defendant sought a further RM130,000.00 from the Plaintiffs.

section

21. The Plaintiffs also complained about the form of the prayers. They submitted that the prayers sought payment directly to the 1st Defend...

21. The Plaintiffs also complained about the form of the prayers. They submitted that the prayers sought payment directly to the 1st Defendant and that, if any security were ordered, it should instead be paid into Court or held by a stakeholder. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 E. Applicable legal principles

section

22. Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 empowers the Court to order security for costs in the circumstances stated in the rule, incl...

22. Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 empowers the Court to order security for costs in the circumstances stated in the rule, including where a plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction. The rule expressly requires the Court to consider whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is just to order security.

section

23. Section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 provides that where a company is the Plaintiff in any action or proceeding, and it appears by cr...

23. Section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 provides that where a company is the Plaintiff in any action or proceeding, and it appears by credible testimony that there is reason to believe that the company will be unable to pay the Defendant’s costs if the Defendant succeeds, the Court may order the company to give sufficient security for costs. The power is discretionary and must be exercised with care.

section

24. In Skrine & Co v MBF Capital Bhd & Anor [1998] 3 MLJ 649, the Court explained that the statutory inquiry requires credible testimony an...

24. In Skrine & Co v MBF Capital Bhd & Anor [1998] 3 MLJ 649, the Court explained that the statutory inquiry requires credible testimony and a reason to believe that the Plaintiff company will be unable to pay the Defendant’s costs. The Court is not required to make a final finding of insolvency, but the material relied upon must be credible and sufficient.

section

25. In North Plaza Sdn Bhd v United Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 631, the Court of Appeal considered the relevance of a Plaintiff compan...

25. In North Plaza Sdn Bhd v United Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 631, the Court of Appeal considered the relevance of a Plaintiff company’s financial position. The case shows that serious financial weakness may support an order for security, **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 but the conclusion still depends on the evidence and the circumstances before the Court.

section

26. In Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zain & Ors v United Overseas Land Ltd & Ors [1998] 4 CLJ 321, the Court recognised that the discretion must be ex...

26. In Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zain & Ors v United Overseas Land Ltd & Ors [1998] 4 CLJ 321, the Court recognised that the discretion must be exercised after considering all relevant matters. These matters include whether the claim is bona fide, whether the application is oppressive, whether the order may stifle a genuine claim, and whether the amount sought is fair.

section

27. In Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 1074, the Court cautioned against turning a security for costs application into a...

27. In Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 1074, the Court cautioned against turning a security for costs application into a trial of the action. A detailed review of the merits is generally not suitable unless the case is plain and obvious.

section

28. In Aeronave SPA & Anor v Westland Charters Ltd & Ors [1971] 3 All ER 531, the Court recognised that the difficulty of enforcing a costs...

28. In Aeronave SPA & Anor v Westland Charters Ltd & Ors [1971] 3 All ER 531, the Court recognised that the difficulty of enforcing a costs order against a foreign Plaintiff is a relevant consideration. That principle assists the Court in weighing the risk of non-recovery, but it does not remove the Court’s discretion.

section

29. In Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Dato’ Michael Chong [1995] 2 MLJ 404, the Malaysian Court also recognised that foreign residence and en...

29. In Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Dato’ Michael Chong [1995] 2 MLJ 404, the Malaysian Court also recognised that foreign residence and enforcement concerns may support an order for security. The Court must still ask whether the order is just on the facts of the particular case. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9

section

30. From these authorities, I take the following principles. The Court must consider the Plaintiff’s financial position, foreign residence...

30. From these authorities, I take the following principles. The Court must consider the Plaintiff’s financial position, foreign residence or incorporation, ease of enforcement, whether the claim is genuine, whether the application is oppressive, whether the amount sought is fair, and whether the order may place an unfair burden on the Plaintiff.

section

31. The jurisdiction is protective, not punitive. A Defendant is entitled to seek protection against a real risk of unrecovered costs, but...

31. The jurisdiction is protective, not punitive. A Defendant is entitled to seek protection against a real risk of unrecovered costs, but the Court must ensure that the remedy remains a shield and does not become a sword. F. Analysis F1. Nature of Enclosure 26

section

32. Enclosure 26 was the 1st Defendant’s own application for security for costs. It was not a fortification application and was not concern...

32. Enclosure 26 was the 1st Defendant’s own application for security for costs. It was not a fortification application and was not concerned with the undertaking as to damages given in the injunction proceedings.

section

33. The question before the Court was whether the 1st Defendant had shown enough to justify an order protecting it against the risk of unre...

33. The question before the Court was whether the 1st Defendant had shown enough to justify an order protecting it against the risk of unrecovered costs. That question had to be answered under Order 23 rule 1 and section 580A, with the Court’s discretion exercised after considering all relevant matters.

section

34. I did not dismiss Enclosure 26 merely because the 2nd Defendant had filed Enclosure 31. The 1st Defendant was **Note : Serial number wi...

34. I did not dismiss Enclosure 26 merely because the 2nd Defendant had filed Enclosure 31. The 1st Defendant was **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 entitled to bring its own application as a separate Defendant facing claims made against it.

section

35. The existence of Enclosure 31 was, however, relevant when considering the practical burden on the Plaintiffs. The Court is not required...

35. The existence of Enclosure 31 was, however, relevant when considering the practical burden on the Plaintiffs. The Court is not required to ignore the combined effect of related applications when deciding whether the order sought is fair. F2. The 1st Plaintiff’s financial position

section

36. I accepted that the 1st Plaintiff’s financial position was relevant. I also accepted that the 1st Defendant was entitled to rely on the...

36. I accepted that the 1st Plaintiff’s financial position was relevant. I also accepted that the 1st Defendant was entitled to rely on the audited financial statements and the matters said to show that the 1st Plaintiff was financially weak.

section

37. I did not treat the 1st Defendant’s financial concerns as irrelevant. The audited materials raised matters which the Court had to consi...

37. I did not treat the 1st Defendant’s financial concerns as irrelevant. The audited materials raised matters which the Court had to consider, including losses, liabilities, short-term borrowings and concerns about the 1st Plaintiff’s financial condition.

section

38. However, financial pressure does not by itself require security to be ordered. The Court must still decide whether there is credible te...

38. However, financial pressure does not by itself require security to be ordered. The Court must still decide whether there is credible testimony giving reason to believe that the 1st Plaintiff will be unable to pay the 1st Defendant’s costs if the 1st Defendant succeeds. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11

section

39. On the evidence before me, I was not satisfied that the 1st Plaintiff had been shown to be an empty company or a company without real c...

39. On the evidence before me, I was not satisfied that the 1st Plaintiff had been shown to be an empty company or a company without real commercial activity. The materials before the Court referred to continuing operations, inventories, receivables, cash or banking facilities, and trading activities.

section

40. The 1st Plaintiff was also not shown to be in liquidation or wound up. That distinction mattered, because cases involving companies in...

40. The 1st Plaintiff was also not shown to be in liquidation or wound up. That distinction mattered, because cases involving companies in liquidation or companies with no evidence of continuing business are different from the present case.

section

41. I accepted that the 1st Plaintiff faced financial pressure. I was not satisfied, however, that this was enough to justify ordering secu...

41. I accepted that the 1st Plaintiff faced financial pressure. I was not satisfied, however, that this was enough to justify ordering security in the amount sought, or in any lesser amount, when all matters were considered.

section

42. The Court should be slow to equate financial pressure in an ongoing commercial enterprise with inability to meet costs. This is especia...

42. The Court should be slow to equate financial pressure in an ongoing commercial enterprise with inability to meet costs. This is especially so where there is evidence that the company continues to trade and where the claim before the Court is not shown to be a sham. F3. The 2nd Plaintiff’s foreign incorporation

section

43. I accepted that the 2nd Plaintiff is incorporated in the People’s Republic of China. I also accepted that the People’s Republic of Chin...

43. I accepted that the 2nd Plaintiff is incorporated in the People’s Republic of China. I also accepted that the People’s Republic of China is not a reciprocating country under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12

section

44. I further accepted that enforcement of a Malaysian costs order against a foreign company may be more difficult. That was a relevant mat...

44. I further accepted that enforcement of a Malaysian costs order against a foreign company may be more difficult. That was a relevant matter and it weighed in favour of the 1st Defendant’s application.

section

45. However, foreign incorporation is not an automatic answer to the application. Order 23 rule 1 requires the Court to decide whether it i...

45. However, foreign incorporation is not an automatic answer to the application. Order 23 rule 1 requires the Court to decide whether it is just to order security after considering all circumstances.

section

46. The 2nd Plaintiff was not shown to be a nominal party added only to avoid costs. It is pleaded as a substantive party in a commercial d...

46. The 2nd Plaintiff was not shown to be a nominal party added only to avoid costs. It is pleaded as a substantive party in a commercial dispute involving alleged confidential information and business dealings connected to the Plaintiffs’ operations.

section

47. I, therefore treated the 2nd Plaintiff’s foreign incorporation and enforcement risk as relevant but not decisive. Those matters did not...

47. I, therefore treated the 2nd Plaintiff’s foreign incorporation and enforcement risk as relevant but not decisive. Those matters did not, by themselves or together with the financial complaints against the 1st Plaintiff, justify the order sought. F4. Merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim

section

48. The 1st Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs’ claim had low prospects of success. The 1st Defendant relied on the alleged invalidity...

48. The 1st Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs’ claim had low prospects of success. The 1st Defendant relied on the alleged invalidity of the restraint clauses, the alleged public nature of the information relied upon, and the absence of actionable solicitation or interference. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13

section

49. I considered those submissions. They raised matters which may be relevant at trial, but they were disputed and required proper consider...

49. I considered those submissions. They raised matters which may be relevant at trial, but they were disputed and required proper consideration of the evidence.

section

50. The Plaintiffs’ claim includes allegations of solicitation or poaching of employees, misuse of confidential information, interference w...

50. The Plaintiffs’ claim includes allegations of solicitation or poaching of employees, misuse of confidential information, interference with business or contractual relations, conspiracy, and breach of contractual obligations. The 1st Defendant denies those matters, but that denial does not make the Plaintiffs’ claim a sham.

section

51. Applying the caution in Porzelack, I did not consider it proper to decide those disputed matters in an application for security for cos...

51. Applying the caution in Porzelack, I did not consider it proper to decide those disputed matters in an application for security for costs. The Court should not conduct a trial within an interlocutory application.

section

52. I was not satisfied that the Plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st Defendant was frivolous, vexatious or abusive. I, therefore treated the...

52. I was not satisfied that the Plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st Defendant was frivolous, vexatious or abusive. I, therefore treated the claim as sufficiently bona fide for the limited purpose of deciding Enclosure 26.

section

53. This finding does not mean that the Plaintiffs will succeed at trial. It only means that, at this stage, the claim was not shown to be...

53. This finding does not mean that the Plaintiffs will succeed at trial. It only means that, at this stage, the claim was not shown to be so plainly hopeless that it should affect the Court’s discretion in favour of ordering security. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 F5. Quantum and combined burden

section

54. The 1st Defendant sought RM65,000.00 from each Plaintiff. The total amount sought under Enclosure 26 was therefore RM130,000.00.

section

55. I accepted that the 1st Defendant was entitled to seek protection for its own costs. I also accepted that defending a commercial claim...

55. I accepted that the 1st Defendant was entitled to seek protection for its own costs. I also accepted that defending a commercial claim involving confidential information, solicitation, interference and conspiracy may involve legal costs.

section

56. The difficulty was that the amount sought had to be assessed fairly. The Court had to consider whether the amount was properly justifie...

56. The difficulty was that the amount sought had to be assessed fairly. The Court had to consider whether the amount was properly justified, whether it was proportionate to the issues, and whether it would place an unfair burden on the Plaintiffs.

section

57. Enclosure 31, filed by the 2nd Defendant, also sought RM130,000.00 from the Plaintiffs. If Enclosures 26 and 31 had both been allowed a...

57. Enclosure 31, filed by the 2nd Defendant, also sought RM130,000.00 from the Plaintiffs. If Enclosures 26 and 31 had both been allowed as prayed, the Plaintiffs would have had to provide RM260,000.00 as security for costs.

section

58. I did not hold that separate Defendants can never seek separate security. Each application must be considered on its own grounds, but t...

58. I did not hold that separate Defendants can never seek separate security. Each application must be considered on its own grounds, but the Court is not required to ignore the combined burden created by multiple applications.

section

59. In my view, the combined amount sought was a relevant practical matter. It showed that the orders sought would impose **Note : Serial n...

59. In my view, the combined amount sought was a relevant practical matter. It showed that the orders sought would impose **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 a substantial financial requirement before trial, despite the Plaintiffs’ claim not having been shown to be a sham.

section

60. I was also not satisfied that the 1st Defendant’s skeletal bill of costs sufficiently justified the amount sought. The material did not...

60. I was also not satisfied that the 1st Defendant’s skeletal bill of costs sufficiently justified the amount sought. The material did not persuade me that RM130,000.00 was fair and necessary at this stage of the proceedings.

section

61. I considered whether a lower amount should be ordered. I declined to do so because the issue was not only the amount, but whether secur...

61. I considered whether a lower amount should be ordered. I declined to do so because the issue was not only the amount, but whether security should be ordered at all in the circumstances before the Court. F6. Alleged oppression and stifling

section

62. The Plaintiffs alleged that Enclosure 26 was a tactical step intended to burden their claim. I was not prepared to make a finding that...

62. The Plaintiffs alleged that Enclosure 26 was a tactical step intended to burden their claim. I was not prepared to make a finding that the 1st Defendant acted in bad faith in filing the application.

section

63. The absence of bad faith, however, does not mean that the Court must grant security. The Court must still guard against orders which ma...

63. The absence of bad faith, however, does not mean that the Court must grant security. The Court must still guard against orders which may place unnecessary pressure on a party pursuing a claim that has not been shown to be abusive.

section

64. The Plaintiffs did not place detailed evidence showing that an order for security would certainly stop them from proceeding with the cl...

64. The Plaintiffs did not place detailed evidence showing that an order for security would certainly stop them from proceeding with the claim. Even so, the Court remained entitled to consider **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 fairness, proportionality and the combined burden of the applications.

section

65. Security for costs is a protective remedy. In applying that remedy, the Court must ensure that a shield does not become a sword, partic...

65. Security for costs is a protective remedy. In applying that remedy, the Court must ensure that a shield does not become a sword, particularly where the substantive dispute remains to be tried.

section

66. On the facts before me, I was not persuaded that ordering security in favour of the 1st Defendant would be fair. The financial and fore...

66. On the facts before me, I was not persuaded that ordering security in favour of the 1st Defendant would be fair. The financial and foreign-incorporation points were relevant, but they did not outweigh the other matters considered. F7. Mode of security

section

67. The Plaintiffs also objected to the prayers because security was sought to be provided to the 1st Defendant. They submitted that securi...

67. The Plaintiffs also objected to the prayers because security was sought to be provided to the 1st Defendant. They submitted that security should instead be paid into Court or held by a stakeholder.

section

68. I did not dismiss Enclosure 26 solely because of the form of the prayers. Order 23 rule 2 gives the Court power to direct the manner, t...

68. I did not dismiss Enclosure 26 solely because of the form of the prayers. Order 23 rule 2 gives the Court power to direct the manner, time and terms on which security is to be provided.

section

69. If I had been minded to order security, the Court could have directed payment into Court or another suitable form of security. Since I...

69. If I had been minded to order security, the Court could have directed payment into Court or another suitable form of security. Since I declined to order security, it was unnecessary to make any further order on the mode of security. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 G. Decision

section

70. I accepted that the 1st Defendant had raised matters which were relevant. The 1st Plaintiff’s financial condition, the 2nd Plaintiff’s...

70. I accepted that the 1st Defendant had raised matters which were relevant. The 1st Plaintiff’s financial condition, the 2nd Plaintiff’s incorporation in the People’s Republic of China, and the enforcement concerns under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 were all considered.

section

71. I also considered the 1st Defendant’s submission that the Plaintiffs’ claim was weak. I was not persuaded that the merits were so plain...

71. I also considered the 1st Defendant’s submission that the Plaintiffs’ claim was weak. I was not persuaded that the merits were so plain that the claim could be treated as a sham or an abuse for the purpose of this application.

section

72. The issues raised in the pleadings remain disputed. They include solicitation of employees, confidential information, business interfer...

72. The issues raised in the pleadings remain disputed. They include solicitation of employees, confidential information, business interference, conspiracy, and the effect of the contractual provisions relied upon by the parties.

section

73. I was not satisfied that the evidence showed the Plaintiffs to be empty corporate vehicles or plainly unable to satisfy future costs or...

73. I was not satisfied that the evidence showed the Plaintiffs to be empty corporate vehicles or plainly unable to satisfy future costs orders. I was also not satisfied that the 2nd Plaintiff’s foreign incorporation made security automatic.

section

74. The amount sought, the existence of the 2nd Defendant’s similar application, and the combined burden on the Plaintiffs were important m...

74. The amount sought, the existence of the 2nd Defendant’s similar application, and the combined burden on the Plaintiffs were important matters. In my judgment, those matters weighed against the order sought. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18

section

75. A shield must not become a sword. On the evidence before me, the protection sought by the 1st Defendant would have imposed a substantia...

75. A shield must not become a sword. On the evidence before me, the protection sought by the 1st Defendant would have imposed a substantial burden on the Plaintiffs without sufficient justification.

section

76. I, therefore declined to exercise the Court’s discretion under Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 580A of the Compa...

76. I, therefore declined to exercise the Court’s discretion under Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 in favour of the 1st Defendant. Enclosure 26 was dismissed after considering all relevant matters before the Court. H. Conclusion

section

77. For the reasons stated above, Enclosure 26 was dismissed. The dismissal should not be read as a finding that the 1st Defendant’s concer...

77. For the reasons stated above, Enclosure 26 was dismissed. The dismissal should not be read as a finding that the 1st Defendant’s concerns were irrelevant.

section

78. The finding was that those concerns did not justify an order for security for costs on the evidence and circumstances before the Court....

78. The finding was that those concerns did not justify an order for security for costs on the evidence and circumstances before the Court. This was especially so given the disputed merits, the evidence of continuing commercial activity, the amount sought, and the combined burden created by the related security application.

section

79. I ordered costs of RM4,000.00 to the Plaintiffs, subject to allocatur. This formed part of the global costs of RM16,000.00 **Note : Ser...

79. I ordered costs of RM4,000.00 to the Plaintiffs, subject to allocatur. This formed part of the global costs of RM16,000.00 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 awarded for Enclosures 26, 28, 31 and 33, which were heard together.

section

80. Nothing in these grounds should be taken as a final decision on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim, the 1st Defendant’s Defence and Co...

80. Nothing in these grounds should be taken as a final decision on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim, the 1st Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim, or the 2nd Defendant’s Defence. The main factual and legal issues remain for trial. Dated 7 July 2026 -sgd-ANITA BINTI HARUN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN To the parties’ solicitors: For the 1st & 2nd Plaintiffs : Justin Voon Tian Yu & Iris Lim (Messrs Justin Voon Chooi & Wing) For the 1st Defendant : Shanice (Messrs Rahmat Lim & Partners) **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 For the 2nd Defendant : 1) Peter Neik Xiang Sheng (Messrs Neik & Partners) 2) Teo Xin Yee (Messrs Ting Asiah & Co.) **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 8 May 2026
Case number: BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024
Coram: YA Dato' Anita binti Harun
Practice area: Civil Procedure-Security for Defendant’s Cost- whether the weak financial status of a company warrants a security of costs- Whether security automatic where Plaintiff company is not incorporated in Malaysia- Whether lack of assets within jurisdiction and ease of enforcement of judgment relevant factors-whether the Plaintiffs have proved that they are on-going company-Discretion of court after taking into all the considerations-Court is cautioned against turning a security for costs application into a trial of the action -Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 8 Jul 2026
Source ID: f52559c8-a4fe-43ac-94cf-cc815d37692c

Catchwords

Civil Procedure-Security for Defendant’s Cost- whether the weak financial status of a company warrants a security of costs- Whether security automatic where Plaintiff company is not incorporated in Malaysia- Whether lack of assets within jurisdiction and ease of enforcement of judgment relevant factors-whether the Plaintiffs have proved that they are on-going company-Discretion of court after taking into all the considerations-Court is cautioned against turning a security for costs application into a trial of the action -Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012

Parties

1. ) NIRO CERAMIC SALES & SERVICES (M) SDN BHD - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
2. ) FOSHAN NIRO CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIALS TRADING CO LTD - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
1. ) GUOCERA SDN BHD - defendant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) CHENG LI YONG - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

How this case connects

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO.: BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 BETWEEN 1)...

1. These are my grounds of decision for Enclosure 26. This was the 1st Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff...

2. By Enclosure 26, the 1st Defendant sought security of RM65,000.00 from the 1st Plaintiff and RM65,000.00 from the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st...

3.

33. Enclosure 26 was heard together with Enclosures 28, 31 and Although the applications arose from the same dispute and there was overlap...

4. This application required the Court to balance the 1st Defendant’s concern that it may not recover costs if it succeeds against the Plai...

5. In applications of this nature, the Court is mindful that a shield must not become a sword. Security for costs is meant to protect a Def...

6. Having considered the affidavits, exhibits, written submissions, oral submissions and authorities relied upon by the parties, I dismisse...

7. The Plaintiffs’ action concerns a commercial dispute involving allegations of employee solicitation, misuse of confidential information,...

8. The 1st Plaintiff, Niro Ceramic Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd, is a Malaysian company. The 2nd Plaintiff, Foshan Niro Ceramic Building Ma...

9. The 1st Defendant denies liability and has filed its Defence and Counterclaim. Among other matters, the 1st Defendant disputes the alleg...

10. Enclosure 26 was not an application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claim or to decide the merits of the action. The merits were relevant...

11. The 1st Defendant’s application rested mainly on two matters. The first concerned the financial position of the 1st Plaintiff, while th...

12. As to the 1st Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant relied on audited financial statements and corporate documents. The 1st Defendant submitted...

13. As to the 2nd Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant submitted that the 2nd Plaintiff is incorporated in the People’s Republic of China and **Not...

14. The 1st Defendant argued that these matters gave rise to a real risk that it would not be able to recover its costs if it successfully...

15. On the merits, the 1st Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs’ claim was weak. The 1st Defendant relied on matters including the alleg...

16. The Plaintiffs opposed Enclosure 26. They submitted that the application was misconceived, excessive and oppressive, and that there was...

17. The Plaintiffs submitted that the 1st Plaintiff was not an empty company. They relied on the existence of continuing business operation...

18. As to the 2nd Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs accepted that it is incorporated outside Malaysia. They submitted, however, that foreign incorp...

19. The Plaintiffs further submitted that their claim was bona fide and meritorious. They argued that the disputed issues concerning solici...

20. The Plaintiffs also objected to the amount sought. They contended that RM130,000.00 was excessive, insufficiently justified, and should...

21. The Plaintiffs also complained about the form of the prayers. They submitted that the prayers sought payment directly to the 1st Defend...

22. Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 empowers the Court to order security for costs in the circumstances stated in the rule, incl...

23. Section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 provides that where a company is the Plaintiff in any action or proceeding, and it appears by cr...

24. In Skrine & Co v MBF Capital Bhd & Anor [1998] 3 MLJ 649, the Court explained that the statutory inquiry requires credible testimony an...

25. In North Plaza Sdn Bhd v United Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 631, the Court of Appeal considered the relevance of a Plaintiff compan...

26. In Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zain & Ors v United Overseas Land Ltd & Ors [1998] 4 CLJ 321, the Court recognised that the discretion must be ex...

27. In Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 1074, the Court cautioned against turning a security for costs application into a...

28. In Aeronave SPA & Anor v Westland Charters Ltd & Ors [1971] 3 All ER 531, the Court recognised that the difficulty of enforcing a costs...

29. In Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Dato’ Michael Chong [1995] 2 MLJ 404, the Malaysian Court also recognised that foreign residence and en...

30. From these authorities, I take the following principles. The Court must consider the Plaintiff’s financial position, foreign residence...

31. The jurisdiction is protective, not punitive. A Defendant is entitled to seek protection against a real risk of unrecovered costs, but...

32. Enclosure 26 was the 1st Defendant’s own application for security for costs. It was not a fortification application and was not concern...

33. The question before the Court was whether the 1st Defendant had shown enough to justify an order protecting it against the risk of unre...

34. I did not dismiss Enclosure 26 merely because the 2nd Defendant had filed Enclosure 31. The 1st Defendant was **Note : Serial number wi...

35. The existence of Enclosure 31 was, however, relevant when considering the practical burden on the Plaintiffs. The Court is not required...

36. I accepted that the 1st Plaintiff’s financial position was relevant. I also accepted that the 1st Defendant was entitled to rely on the...

37. I did not treat the 1st Defendant’s financial concerns as irrelevant. The audited materials raised matters which the Court had to consi...

38. However, financial pressure does not by itself require security to be ordered. The Court must still decide whether there is credible te...

39. On the evidence before me, I was not satisfied that the 1st Plaintiff had been shown to be an empty company or a company without real c...

40. The 1st Plaintiff was also not shown to be in liquidation or wound up. That distinction mattered, because cases involving companies in...

41. I accepted that the 1st Plaintiff faced financial pressure. I was not satisfied, however, that this was enough to justify ordering secu...

42. The Court should be slow to equate financial pressure in an ongoing commercial enterprise with inability to meet costs. This is especia...

43. I accepted that the 2nd Plaintiff is incorporated in the People’s Republic of China. I also accepted that the People’s Republic of Chin...

44. I further accepted that enforcement of a Malaysian costs order against a foreign company may be more difficult. That was a relevant mat...

45. However, foreign incorporation is not an automatic answer to the application. Order 23 rule 1 requires the Court to decide whether it i...

46. The 2nd Plaintiff was not shown to be a nominal party added only to avoid costs. It is pleaded as a substantive party in a commercial d...

47. I, therefore treated the 2nd Plaintiff’s foreign incorporation and enforcement risk as relevant but not decisive. Those matters did not...

48. The 1st Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs’ claim had low prospects of success. The 1st Defendant relied on the alleged invalidity...

49. I considered those submissions. They raised matters which may be relevant at trial, but they were disputed and required proper consider...

50. The Plaintiffs’ claim includes allegations of solicitation or poaching of employees, misuse of confidential information, interference w...

51. Applying the caution in Porzelack, I did not consider it proper to decide those disputed matters in an application for security for cos...

52. I was not satisfied that the Plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st Defendant was frivolous, vexatious or abusive. I, therefore treated the...

53. This finding does not mean that the Plaintiffs will succeed at trial. It only means that, at this stage, the claim was not shown to be...

54. The 1st Defendant sought RM65,000.00 from each Plaintiff. The total amount sought under Enclosure 26 was therefore RM130,000.00.

55. I accepted that the 1st Defendant was entitled to seek protection for its own costs. I also accepted that defending a commercial claim...

56. The difficulty was that the amount sought had to be assessed fairly. The Court had to consider whether the amount was properly justifie...

57. Enclosure 31, filed by the 2nd Defendant, also sought RM130,000.00 from the Plaintiffs. If Enclosures 26 and 31 had both been allowed a...

58. I did not hold that separate Defendants can never seek separate security. Each application must be considered on its own grounds, but t...

59. In my view, the combined amount sought was a relevant practical matter. It showed that the orders sought would impose **Note : Serial n...

60. I was also not satisfied that the 1st Defendant’s skeletal bill of costs sufficiently justified the amount sought. The material did not...

61. I considered whether a lower amount should be ordered. I declined to do so because the issue was not only the amount, but whether secur...

62. The Plaintiffs alleged that Enclosure 26 was a tactical step intended to burden their claim. I was not prepared to make a finding that...

63. The absence of bad faith, however, does not mean that the Court must grant security. The Court must still guard against orders which ma...

64. The Plaintiffs did not place detailed evidence showing that an order for security would certainly stop them from proceeding with the cl...

65. Security for costs is a protective remedy. In applying that remedy, the Court must ensure that a shield does not become a sword, partic...

66. On the facts before me, I was not persuaded that ordering security in favour of the 1st Defendant would be fair. The financial and fore...

67. The Plaintiffs also objected to the prayers because security was sought to be provided to the 1st Defendant. They submitted that securi...

68. I did not dismiss Enclosure 26 solely because of the form of the prayers. Order 23 rule 2 gives the Court power to direct the manner, t...

69. If I had been minded to order security, the Court could have directed payment into Court or another suitable form of security. Since I...

70. I accepted that the 1st Defendant had raised matters which were relevant. The 1st Plaintiff’s financial condition, the 2nd Plaintiff’s...

71. I also considered the 1st Defendant’s submission that the Plaintiffs’ claim was weak. I was not persuaded that the merits were so plain...

72. The issues raised in the pleadings remain disputed. They include solicitation of employees, confidential information, business interfer...

73. I was not satisfied that the evidence showed the Plaintiffs to be empty corporate vehicles or plainly unable to satisfy future costs or...

74. The amount sought, the existence of the 2nd Defendant’s similar application, and the combined burden on the Plaintiffs were important m...

75. A shield must not become a sword. On the evidence before me, the protection sought by the 1st Defendant would have imposed a substantia...

76. I, therefore declined to exercise the Court’s discretion under Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 580A of the Compa...

77. For the reasons stated above, Enclosure 26 was dismissed. The dismissal should not be read as a finding that the 1st Defendant’s concer...