Bishopgate Capital Limited v 1. ) Boston Asia Capital LLC (WA-22NCvC-514-08/2018)

The Plaintiff in this case applied for 2 orders filed under 1 application. The first application under Order 90 Rule 8(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) is for the money deposited in 10/10/2025 10:46:14 WA-22NCvC-514-08/2018 Kand. 391 Court by the Defendants as security of cost be released to the Plaintiff immediately as settlement of the court judgment given in the Plaintiff’s favor.

The 2nd application under Order 45 Rule 7(7) and Order 92 Rule (4) is to apply for leave to serve the court judgment to the solicitors representing the Defendant instead of being served personally to the Defendants.

Order 90 Rule 8(1)(a) stipulates as follows:

Applications with respect to funds in Court (O. 90 r. 8)

Where an application to the High Court-

for the payment or transfer to any person of any funds in Court standing to the credit of any cause or matter or for the transfer of any such funds to a separate account or for the payment to any person of any dividend of or interest on any securities or money comprised in such fund; is made, the application may be disposed of in Chambers, if applicable.

Order 45 Rule 7(7) states that

Without prejudice to its power under Order 62, rule 5, the Court may dispense with service of a copy of an order under this rule if it thinks it just to do so.

Order 92 Rule 4 gives inherent powers to prevent injustice and is worded as follows:

Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92 r. 4) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. Brief facts

After a full trial the Court had entered judgement in favour of the Plaintiff in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant. The Defendants who are both foreign based, were ordered to pay the Plaintiff a sum of a sum of USD2.25 million (RM21,420 million) within a period of 7 days of the judgement. The Court had also allowed costs and interest.

The Court further directed that no proceedings including appeal against the judgement can be filed before this judgement is satisfied. The Defendant flouted this order of the Court and proceeded to file the appeal without satisfying the judgement sum.

The subject matter of this application were monies deposited in Court by way of a Court of Appeal directions and were to be retained and preserved until the disposal of the case before the High Court. The case before the High Court as stated earlier has been disposed and hence this application by the Plaintiff. Application for withdraw of the monies deposited in Court

The Rules as reproduced above empowers the Court to give order in chambers and in this case the purpose of the application is to give effect to a court judgment. Taking this into account the Court deems that in the face of the court judgment which directed the judgement sum to be paid within 7 days and the failure of the Defendants to do so, entitles the Plaintiff to execute the judgment by getting leave of this Court to direct the money paid in court to be withdrawn and be given to the Plaintiff to satisfy the judgment sum partially.

The Court in allowing the application took into account the background and circumstances of the case whereby the Defendants who are foreign based had displayed contemptuous conduct earlier in failing to adhere to the Court’s direction to deposit the monies in court a s a security. It was only after committal [proceedings had been taken and for fear of reprisals the Defendants deposited the monies in Court.

The Court also noted that despite the Court directing that any further proceedings including appeal can only be undertaken after the judgement sum had been satisfied the Defendant still went ahead and filed an appeal. The reason for the Court directing that the judgment sum be satisfied was because of the earlier contemptuous conduct shown by the Defendants. The Defendants are again in contempt of this Court order when they filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal before satisfying the judgment sum.

The Defendants conduct indicates that they have no intention to pay the judgment sum and this clearly prevents the Plaintiff fom enjoying the fruit of its litigation. Waiver of personal service

On the Plaintiff’s application for waiver of personal service on the Defendants the Court directs that this application be applied when executing the withdrawal of the sums paid into court which the Court now allows.

In the upshot the Court allows the Plaintiff’s application to withdraw the money deposited into court by the Defendants as partial satisfaction of the judgment sum. Dated: 9.10.2025 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Trevor De Silva & Keith Yeow Tze Yi Tetuan Yeow & Partners No. 1-3, Jalan Dataran Jade 1 Jade Hills 43000 Kajang Selangor. For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Dato Y Sivaloganathan; Dato Dhanaraj; Lingeshwara Raao; Arun Ghanesh; Andrew Navin (PDK) Tetuan Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim Unit B-9-11, Phileo Damansara 1 No. 9, Jalan 16/11, Off Jalan Damansara 46350 Petaling Jaya Selangor.