Selvarajan A/L Veeriah v Bangsar Aman Management Corporation (WA-22NCvC-777-12/2024)

BANGSAR AMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

KARTHIGASU A/L K. RATNASINGAM

FOO JIA–HOU

ANG LING LING

ADRIAN HO TUCK DJI

RUBAN SATKUNA NATHAN

PLANET GARDENS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 201101002535 (930672-A)) 08/03/2026 23:35:25

LIEW TZE HANN

ISAAC DANIEL (NO. K/P: 641009-10-5563) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Striking-out due to non-compliance with Order for Security for Costs) Introduction [1] On 16th October 2025, this Court decided to allow the 1st Defendant’s application (Enclosure 41), the 2nd Defendant’s application (Enclosure 124) and the 3rd to 6th Defendant’s application (Enclosure 39) for Security for costs of RM50,000 to be furnished by the Plaintiff to the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively and also RM50,000 to the 3rd to 6th Defendants, within 14 days. [2] It was ordered that payment was to be made to the respective solicitors for those Defendants, to be held as stakeholders until the Plaintiff’s action is disposed of. It was further ordered that the Plaintiff’s claim against those Defendants was to be stayed until security for costs was furnished by the Plaintiff. An Unless order was also issued that the Plaintiff’s claim shall be struck out after 6 weeks if he had failed to comply with the order to furnish security for costs. [3] The Plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the aforesaid Order of this Court. I have duly rendered my Grounds of Judgment to explain my reasons for finding that it was abundantly clear that this Court ought to order security for costs to be furnished by the Plaintiff to the 1st, 2nd, and the 3rd to 6th Defendants respectively. [4] In my earlier Grounds of Judgment (published in [2025] MLJU 4707), I have stated I was constrained to make a finding of fact that the Plaintiff had fully relocated to Melbourne in 2005, and was there not for just a short stint. He was employed in Melbourne and has remained there, making Melbourne his home since 2005. [5] It was also noted that the Plaintiff himself had, in multiple emails, expressly identified Melbourne as his place of residence. Thus, it was my judgment that the Plaintiff is not ordinarily a resident in Malaysia as he has lived continuously in Melbourne since 2005, perhaps with occasional trips to Malaysia to visit his mother. [6] I had also explained that since the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is voluminous, it would be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to order the Plaintiff to furnish a sum of RM50,000 as security for costs. [7] Even though the Plaintiff had duly filed a Notice to Act in Person, he failed to turn up in Court on 16th October 2025. He was subsequently duly informed that two other applications (Enclosure 81 & 131) were to be fixed for hearing at 9.00am on 30th October 2025. Again, on 30th October 2025, the Plaintiff failed to turn up for the hearing even though this Court had ‘stood down’ the hearing till 10.10am to await his attendance. Hearing of those two applications proceeded on 30th October 2025 and a new Case Management Date was scheduled on 9.00am on 16th December 2025 regarding the Plaintiff’s pending application (Enclosure 21). [8] The Plaintiff was again duly informed of the 16th December 2025 date fixed by this Court but he had, once again, failed to attend Court even though this Court had ‘stood down’ the matter till 9.40am on 16th December 2025 to await his attendance. [9] Since the Plaintiff had failed to attend Court on 16th December 2025, his pending application (Enclosure 21) was struck out for want of prosecution while his Writ (Enclosure 1) was struck out due to his failure to furnish security for costs in compliance with the Orders dated 16th October 2025. The Plaintiff’s Appeal against the Orders dated 16th December 2025 [10] It is noted that in his Notice of Appeal dated 12th January 2026 which was to appeal against the Orders dated 16th December 2025, the Plaintiff has conceded that his appeal would depend on the outcome of his earlier appeals against the orders issued by this Court on 16th October 2025, i.e. the order that ordered him to furnish security for costs. [11] Further, I have also noted that the Plaintiff has raised an additional point, objecting to the striking-out orders having been made on 16th December 2025, which was a date fixed for case management. My humble view is that this Court had the power to issue the orders on GUAMAN SIVIL NO: WA-22NCvC-777-12/2024 16th December 2025 – which were consequential orders made upon oral application by learned counsel who had pointed out the Plaintiff’s undisputed failure to comply with the Orders dated 16th October 2025. [12] As a matter of fact, the Plaintiff did not even bother to apply for a stay pending appeal. Since the Orders dated 16th October 2025 – which were duly served on the Plaintiff – had included an Unless Order for the Plaintiff’s claims to be struck out after 6 weeks in the event of failure to comply, this Court was constrained to follow-up by issuing the consequential orders as prayed for by learned counsel for those affected Defendants. [13] Lastly, O.34 r.6 Rules of Court 2012 empowers this Court to make any order deemed fit during a case management session if any party fails to attend Court. Date of Decision: 16th December 2025. ………………………… Gan Techiong Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur (NCvC9) The Plaintiff had filed Notice To Act in Person but failed to attend Court Counsel for the 1st Defendant: Sarah Ho Yixin (Tan Yoong Chang with her) SOLICITORS FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT: MESSRS SREENEVASAN Advocates & Solicitors Suites B-1C & D, Level, Block B The Five @ Kompleks Pejabat Damansara, Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights, 50490 KUALA LUMPUR. Counsel for the 2nd Defendant: Syahana Binti Azhari SOLICITORS FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT: MESSRS NANDRAJOG Advocates & Solicitors 3-9-9, Tower 3, UOA Business Park, 1, Jalan Pengaturcara U1/51, Kawasan Perindustrian Temasya, 40150 SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR. Counsel for the 3rd-6th Defendants: Pavitra Pillai A/P Ramesh Pillai (James Lau Jian Hui with her) SOLICITORS FOR THE 3RD-6TH DEFENDANTS: MESSRS M DAVID MORAIS Advocates & Solicitors GUAMAN SIVIL NO: WA-22NCvC-777-12/2024 274, Lorong Maarof, Bukit Bandaraya, 59100 KUALA LUMPUR.

Order 23 & 34 r.6 Rules of Court 2012.