SNH Bumi Corporation Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) Didi Automotive Sdn. Bhd. (BA-22NCvC-170-04/2024)

DIDI AUTOMOTIVE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 201101028888)

DIDI RESOURCES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 199601003053) − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Notis Permohonan Defendan-Defendan menurut Aturan 23 kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah sebagaimana pada Kandungan 50 ialah untuk memohon suatu jaminan kos kepada Defendan-Defendan sebanyak RM150,000.00 atau jumlah lain yang ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah ini untuk dibayar dan didepositkan dengan peguam cara Defendan-Defendan sebagai pemegang taruhan (“stakeholder”) dalam tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh Perintah ini. 18/08/2025 15:14:41 BA-22NCvC-170-04/2024 Kand. 70 Sekiranya Plaintif gagal, enggan dan/atau abai untuk membayar jaminan kos sepertimana yang diperintahkan, tindakan ini dan segala prosiding Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan di dalam ini dibatalkan dengan kos tanpa kebebasan untuk memfailkan semula. [2] Alasan-alasan permohonan ini adalah seperti berikut:

berdasarkan penyata kewangan Plaintif terakhir yang diserahsimpan iaitu tahun 2012, Plaintif telah mengalami kerugian selepas cukai.

Plaintif tidak menyerahsimpan penyata kewangan dari tahun 2012 sehingga kini, iaitu selama 13 tahun, yakni menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif tiada apa-apa akaun yang sah dan perlu atau kewangan yang mencukupi.

Plaintif tidak mempunyai keupayaan kewangan yang mencukupi berdasarkan rekod syarikat rasmi dan wajib diserahsimpan untuk membuktikan bahawa Plaintif boleh memenuhi kos tindakan ini sekiranya kos diperintahkan terhadap Plainitif. [3] Selanjutnya dalam Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan oleh Yap Lin Unn, Ketua Jenama bagi Defendan pada 22 April 2025 menyatakan fakta ketidakupayaan Plaintif untuk membayar kos, manakala perkara undang-undang yang terkandung dalam afidavit sokongan ini adalah berdasarkan kepada nasihat peguam caranya −

berdasarkan carian dalam Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM), Defendan mendapati Plaintif tidak memfailkan laporan akhir tahun kewangan syarikat Plaintif. Kali terakhir laporan tahun kewangan adalah bertarikh 30-6-2012 yang mencatatkan kerugian sebanyak RM32,663.00 dan Plaintif mempunyai caj dengan pihak bank serta pinjaman bank. Liabiliti Plaintif melebihi aset semasa Plaintif.

kedudukan kewangan Plaintif yang lemah dan sekiranya Defendan-Defendan berjaya dalam kes ini, Defendan-Defendan percaya bahawa Plaintif tidak akan dapat membayar Defendan apa-apa kos yang mungkin diberikan oleh Mahkamah ini.

jumlah jaminan kos sebanyak RM150,000.00 yang dimohon oleh Defendan-Defendan ini adala jumlah global bagi kedua-dua Defendan dan ianya suatu jumlah yang munasabah. Keputusan Mahkamah pada 21-7-2025: [4] Hal keadaan yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan-Defendan yang memohon suatu jaminan kos adalah tidak wajar dan tidak patut untuk dibenarkan. Undang-undang mengenai jaminan kos [5] Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada The Bench Book (Civil Procedure) sebagai panduan mengenai peruntukan jaminan kos iaitu − The court has a discretion to order the following parties to provide security for costs:

a plaintiff to whom any one of the paragraphs under Order 23 rule 1(1)(a) to (b) of the ROC applies;

a person who is not a party to the proceedings (Non-Party) who has assigned the Non-Party’s right to claim to the plaintiff so as to avoid the Non-Party’s liability for costs - Order 23 rule1(2A)(a) of the ROC;

a Non-Party who has contributed or agreed to contribute to the plaintiff’s costs in return for a share of any money or property which the plaintiff may recover in the proceedings - Order 23 rule 1(2A) (b) of the ROC;

a party who has filed a counterclaim to whom any one of the paragraphs under Order 23 rule 1(1)(a) to (b) of the ROC applies - Order 23 rule 1(3) of the ROC; (e) a company which has filed an action - section 580A(1) of the

an appellant. The court cannot order the following parties to provide security for costs:

a defendant in an action;

a defendant in a counterclaim; and

a respondent in an appeal. If any one of the paragraphs in Order 23 rule 1(1)(a) to (d) of the ROC applies, the court has a discretion to order security for costs. The following matters are relevant in the exercise of the court’s discretion:

the court should balance between exposing an innocent defendant to the costs of a suit and the risk of shutting out a plaintiff from ventilating a genuine grievance;

whether the suit is brought in good faith by the plaintiff;

whether the application for security for costs is made in good faith or is made to stifle a legitimate claim;

whether the application for security for costs oppresses a plaintiff;

without going into the merits of the claim in detail, the Court may consider the prospects of success of the claim. The Court should not delve into the merits of the case unless it can be clearly demonstrated one way or another that there is a high degree of probability of success;

whether the plaintiff is impecunious and whether the plaintiff’s impecuniosity is caused by the defendant;

whether a plaintiff - (i) is ordinarily resident, permanent resident or citizen (if individual); (ii) has been incorporated (if a company); and/or (iii) has assets and/or business in a country which has reciprocal arrangement with Malaysia for the enforcement of judgments or orders. If “yes”, this consideration does not support an order for security for costs. If “no”, this consideration supports an order for security for costs; and

whether there has been an unreasonable delay in applying for security for costs. However, it is decided in Adarsh Pandit that an application for security for costs may be made at any time. [6] Selanjutnya dalam kes North Plaza Sdn Bhd v. United Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 631, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa − “... the court is vested with unfettered discretion when deciding on an application for security for costs. ...”. [7] Saranan di atas juga dipakai dalam kes Mechanalysis Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v. Appraisal Property Management Sdn Bhd [2016] 11 MLJ 566, Mohd Nazlan JC (Yang Arif ketika itu) yang merujuk kepada 2 keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan − “[41] Whilst the inability of the plaintiff to pay has been established, and the application for the security for costs is thus justified, I should add for completeness that this does not mean that other considerations are irrelevant to the evaluation. Thus, despite authorities which held the contrary (that the likelihood of success or weakness of a plaintiff’s claim is not a relevant consideration to be taken into account in the exercise of discretion by the court) such as in Measat Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd v AV Asia Sdn Bhd [2014] 3 CLJ 915, I do not agree with the contention of the irrelevant consideration as far as an application for security for costs is concerned.

The following can be distilled from the legal authorities above:

21.1 For cases involving companies, the Court ought to carry out a two-stage inquiry process. First, to determine whether there appears to be credible evidence, and second to ascertain whether that evidence supports the contention that the Plaintiffs will be unable to pay costs;

21.2 The expression ‘appears’ connotes that mere insubstantial evidence will be sufficient in meeting the threshold of ‘credible evidence’;

21.3 The merits of respective parties’ cases are relevant consideration; and

21.4 The Court has an unfettered discretion in granting such an order, where it ought to consider all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.”. [8] Peruntukan Order 23 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 –

Where, on the application of a defendant to an action or other proceedings in the Court, it appears to the Court –

that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction;

that the plaintiff (not being a plaintiff who is suing in a representative capacity) is a nominal plaintiff who is suing for the benefit of some other person and that there is reason to believe that he will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if ordered to do so;

subject to paragraph (2), that the plaintiff's address is not stated in the writ or originating summons or is incorrectly stated therein; or

that the plaintiff has changed his address during the course of the proceedings with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation, then, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court thinks it just to do, it may order the plaintiff to give such security for the defendant's costs of the action or other proceedings as it thinks just.

The Court shall not require a plaintiff to give security by reason only of subparagraph (1)(c) if he satisfies the Court that the failure to state his address or the misstatement thereof was made innocently and without an intention to deceive. [9] Skop bagi peruntukan memberikan jaminan kos jika “having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court thinks it just to do”. [10] Nas undang-undang kes yang berikut adalah dirujuk:

Raju Rajaram Pillai (T/A Dhanveer Enterprise) v MMC Power Sdn Bhd & Anor [2000] 6 MLJ 551, Abdul Malik Ishak J (Yang Arif ketika itu) memutuskan − “Generally, the court has the discretionary power to order security for costs. Rule 1, para (1) of the RHC states that the court may order security for costs ‘if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the court thinks it just to do so’. In my considered view, these words meant a lot. It should be given its due recognition. These words have the desired effect of conferring upon the court a real discretion to consider the circumstances of each case and to determine whether and to what extent a plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, be ordered to provide security for costs. Thus, the court has the discretion: (i) to consider the circumstances of the case; (ii) and to decide whether to order security for costs; and (iii) to determine the quantum to be imposed for the security for costs.”

Loh Chee Yan v Loh Kong Yew and Loh Ngai Poh [1917] 2 FMSLR 176, the Supreme Court memutuskan − “The special circumstances which I find in this case furnish grounds for such an order are as follows: 1) The appellant resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and is possessed of no immoveable property within the jurisdiction. 2) These proceedings have put the defendants to a heavy expenditure in costs which at present seem to be irrecoverable.”.

Badrul Zaman PS MD Zakariah v Mohd Aris Chonin and Ors [2006] 7 CLJ 397, Abdul Malik Ishak J ((Yang Arif ketika itu) memutuskan − “Of significance is this. That security for costs may be ordered for the past as well as for the future costs that may be incurred. This cannot be doubted … … it is trite that security for costs will generally be awarded against a party that is outside of this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction.”.

Goldquest International Ltd v Teh Leong Kiat [2003] 2 CLJ 402, Abdul Malik Ishak J (Yang Arif ketika itu) memutuskan − “…What is of pertinence would be this. That an application for security for costs must be supported by credible testimony and this is done in this appeal by the presence of the affidavit in encl. It is part and parcel of my judgment that the affidavit in encl. 6 reasonably shows that the plaintiff will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant in the event the defendant is successful … . And the basis for making an order for security against the plaintiff is the risk that the plaintiff has no assets, or if there are assets as alleged by the plaintiff, it will be difficult for the defendant to reach those assets bearing in mind that the plaintiff is a foreign company and is outside jurisdiction.”. [11] Dalam kes Haidakota (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tan Tiam Chai [2008] MLJU 654, [2009] 1 CLJ 699 at 702, adalah diputuskan bahawa “An order for security for costs should generally not be made where the making of it would be oppressive”. [12] Objektif Jaminan Kos/Security for Costs adalah –

It is one way of resolving the apparent conflict of interest.

(ii) The successful defendant who has been put into unnecessary expenses by having to defend the claim ought not to be deprived of the costs of action.

(iii) No person should be discouraged from using the process of the court for the redress of wrongs alleged to have been suffered by him. [13] Terdapat 4 keadaan untuk pertimbangan Mahkamah dalam menentukan jaminan kos dibenarkan atau tidak, iaitu –

Where the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction of the court;

(ii) Where the plaintiff is suing for the benefit of some other person, in other words, where he is only a nominal plaintiff and he may be unable to pay the costs of the proceedings, if ordered to do so;

(iii) Where his address for service is not stated on the writ or is incorrectly stated, unless the mistake is innocently made; dan

(iv) He has changed his address during the course of the proceedings with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation. Penilaian dan Dapatan Mahkamah ini [14] Berdasarkan afidavit sokongan yang menyatakan alasan permohonan oleh Defendan-Defendan, adalah jelas nyata bahawa jaminan kos dimohon terhadap Plaintif berpunca daripada semakan carian oleh Defendan-Defendan di SSM yang menunjukkan kerugian oleh Plaintif. [15] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti afidavit jawapan pengarah Plaintif iaitu En. Shahrin bin Shamsudin yang mengakui bahawa terdapat kelewatan untuk memfailkan penyata akaun kewangan yang diaudit kepada SSM. Plaintif sudah menyiapkan penyata akaun kewangan beraudit bagi tahun 2021, 2022 dan 2023. Plaintif kini sedang mengemaskinikan status rekod dengan SSM. Pengarah Plaintif juga menyatakan bahawa caj-caj kepada Bank Islam yang dinyatakan dalam carian SSM telahpun diselesaikan sepenuhnya sejak tahun 2019. Plaintif sedang menunggu surat daripada pihak Bank Islam bagi redemption statement cum undertaking. [16] Fakta bahawa syarikat Plaintif masih beroperasi dan aktif adalah fakta yang benar dan tiada apa-apa tindakan penggulungan difailkan terhadap Plaintif. Syarikat Plaintif adalah solvent dan berupaya dari segi kewangan untuk membayar kepada Defendan-Defendan jika Defendan-Defendan menang dalam kes ini. [17] Prinsip undang-undang adalah “security for costs is not a tool like a performance bond and/or bail.”. Sama ada Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan akan berjaya (menang) dalam kes ini hanya akan diketahui pada akhir bicara penuh. Kedua-dua pihak perlu bersedia dengan kes masing-masing. Persediaan dari segi kewangan dalam bentuk jaminan kos sememangnya diperuntukkan di bawah undang-undang (Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan prinsip undang-undang kes. Namun begitu, permohonan Defendan-Defendan agar Plaintif membayar wang sebanyak RM150,000.00 sebagai jaminan yang didepositkan ke dalam Mahkamah adalah tidak perlu. [18] Peruntukan yang dinyatakan dalam Order 23 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 dengan jelas memberikan budibicara kepada Mahkamah. Pelaksanaan/penjalanan kuasa budi bicara ini perlu mengambil kira semua hal keadaan dan fakta kes (pohon rujuk: Liminous Crossroads Sdn Bhd v. Lim Kong Huat Construction [2001] MLJU 475, [2002] 5 CLJ 100). [19] Faktor yang Mahkamah boleh ambil kira/ambil pertimbangan dalam menjalankan kuasa budibicaranya sama ada membenarkan atau tidak award jaminan kos adalah −

Whether the Plaintiffs’ claims are bona fide and not a sham;

(ii) Whether the Plaintiffs had a reasonably good prospect of success;

(iii) Whether there is admission by the Defendants on the pleadings or elsewhere that money is due;

(iv) Whether there was payment into court of a substantial sum of money (not merely a payment into court to get rid of a nuisance claim);

Whether the application for security was being used oppressively so as to try and stifle a genuine claim; dan

(vi) Whether the Plaintiffs’ want of means has been brought about by any conduct of the defendants, such as delay in payment or delay in doing their part of work. [20] Berdasarkan pengamatan mendalam, Mahkamah ini mendapati tuntutan Plaintif mengenai dakwaan bahawa Defendan-Defendan mencuri atau menyalahgunakan Kelulusan Jenis Kenderaan (Vehicle Type Approval/VTA) Plaintif untuk mengimport kenderaan bermotor ke Malaysia. Jumlah tuntutan Plaintif ialah sebanyak RM1,920,000.00, faedah dan fi guaman. Defendan Pertama menafikan dakwaan Plaintif dan menyatakan dalam pembelaannya bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah memperoleh VTA Terhad dan hak eksklusif untuk mengimport, mendaftar, mengedar dan/atau menjual motosikal jenama Royal Enfield di Malaysia sejak 21- 10-2021. Plaintif pula menyatakan bahawa tiada pertikaian mengenai hak Defendan Pertama sebagai pengedar sah Royal Enfield selepas tarikh 21-10-2021. Tetapi isu tuntutan Plaintif ialah mengenai penggunaan VTA Plaintif yang telah diperoleh sebelum pelantikan tersebut dan masih berdaftar atas nama Plaintif. [21] Mahkamah berpendapat punca/faktor Defendan-Defendan yang memohon jaminan kos ialah kerana Plaintif “has no money” jikalau Plaintif kalah dalam tuntutannya selepas perbicaraan penuh maka sudah pasti Plaintif tidak berupaya membayar kos yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah selepas bicara penuh. Maka, permohonan Defendan-Defendan sebagaimana dalam Kand. 50 ini membolehkan Mahkamah ini membatalkan tuntutan Plaintif jika jaminan kos gagal diberikan/dibayar kepada Defendan-Defendan. [22] Dalam kes Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd v. Triplan Ltd [1973] QB 609 diputuskan bahawa “it may be a denial of justice to order security to be given to a defendant who has no defence to the action.”. [23] Mahkamah ini berpendapat dan memutuskan bahawa suatu jaminan kos yang boleh dibenarkan dalam ialah bukan bertujuan untuk mengenakan penalti kepada Plaintif semata-mata kerana tuntutan ini diteruskan dalam suatu perbicaraan penuh dan kebarangkalian bahawa Plaintif kalah/gagal dalam tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan. Mahkamah ini menegaskan bahawa “No person should be discouraged from using the process of the court for the redress of wrongs alleged to have been suffered by him.”. [24] Prinsip ini dinyatakan dalam kes Tan Bon Kiat v. Lau Kok Guan @ Low Kok Guan & Ors [2020] MLJU 1434, iaitu: “[25] It has been said that ‘when dealing with security for costs, courts and counsel must not forget that access to justice is a fundamental guarantee under the Federal Constitution. The courts under the Federal Constitution are in place to give a right of hearing at all stages and not to create obstacles by reason of security for costs, in particular to the poor, needy and oppressed:’ per Hamid Sultan JCA in Ling Khee Ming v. Ling Shew Kue @ Ling Chai Yuen.”. [25] Mahkamah ini mendapati semata-mata penggantungan atau penyandaran Defendan-Defendan kepada butiran dalam penyata tahun kewangan bahawa Plaintif tidak berupaya dari segi kewangan adalah tidak konklusif. Kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif dalam perniagaan bukan bermakna jika tuntutan Plaintif tidak berjaya maka Plaintif tidak berupaya membayar apa-apa penghakiman kepada Defendan-Defendan. Terdapat cara untuk menguatkuasakan Penghakiman dan Perintah Mahkamah terhadap Plaintif. Dalam kes Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v. Dato’ Michael Chong [1995] 2 MLJ 404, Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “However, the plaintiff’s impecuniosity by itself is not a sufficient ground for me to make the order for costs. As said by the Bingham LJ in Thune & Anor v London Properties Ltd & Ors [1990] 1 All ER 972 at p 979;[1990] 1 WLR 562 at pp 571-572: In approaching that question it cannot be too emphatically stated that impecuniosity of a personal plaintiff is never of itself enough to confer on the court a discretion to order security. It is not a ground in O 23 r 1(1) … But I am for my part firmly of the opinion that it is matter which the court may, and in proper case should, consider in exercising a discretion where the power to make an order is established.” [26] Mahkamah ini mengulangi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa “The factors/circumstances as provided in the law has given this Court guidelines for consideration and the judicial discretion must be exercised properly”. [27] Dalam kes P T Karya Sumiden Indonesia v. Oceanmasters Marine Services Sdn Bhd & anor [2014] 6 CLJ 251, diputuskan bahawa: “[48] It is evident that in each case the court will balance the factors stipulated above in the context of each particular factual matrix and determine whether it would be just in the particular facts of that case to order security for costs. It is not an entitlement as of right. (See also North Plaza Sdn Bhd v. United Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 470; [2010] 1 MLJ 631 and Eastacres Development Sdn Bhd v. Fatimah Mutallip & Anor [2000] 5 CLJ 379; [2000] 7 MLJ 371).” [28] Berkenaan dengan perkara yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan-Defendan iaitu liabiliti Plaintif melebihi aset semasa Plaintif dan keuntungan bersih cukai Plaintif yang rendah, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Defendan-Defendan tidak mengemukakan mengenai senarai aset yang dimiliki oleh Plaintif i.e. net current assets tetapi hanya menegaskan bahawa liabiliti Plaintif melebihi aset semasa Plaintif. Selepas meneliti penyata kewangan beraudit Plaintif, Defendan-Defendan menyatakan bahawa keuntungan bersih cukai bagi tahun 2021 hingga tahun 2023 amat rendah dan ini menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif tidak berupaya untuk membayar kos kepada Defendan-Defendan sekiranya diberikan oleh Mahkamah ini. Beban pembuktian adalah terletak kepada Defendan-Defendan dan bukan tanggungjawab Plaintif untuk menyangkalnya. Prinsip ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Kejuteraan Taipan (M) Sdn Bhd v. Loh & Loh Construction Sdn Bhd [2007]1 MLJ 578, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “Since it was the defendant who was applying for security for costs, the defendant had the legal burden to justify to the court as to why they were entitled to security for costs. It was not for the plaintiff to satisfy the court as to why they should not furnish security for costs. The defendant had failed to discharge this burden. The reason given by the defendant (that the plaintiff company had been wound up and prima facie unable to pay costs) was insufficient for the court to compel the plaintiff to furnish security for costs. Moreover, there had been inordinate delay on the part of the defendant in making the present application (see paras 3-4)”. [29] Andaian utama Defendan-Defendan adalah Plaintif akan kalah dalam kes ini dan kemenangan memihak kepada Defendan-Defendan maka wajar bagi Defendan-Defendan diberikan “cengkeram” atau “deposit” bagi hasil litigasinya melalui permohonan Jaminan Kos. Mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju. Kesimpulan [30] Dalam hal keadaan dan alasan yang saya nyatakan di atas, adalah keputusan saya bahawa selepas menilai keterangan afidavit Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan, Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan bahawa Plaintif tidak berkeupayaan dalam membayar segala kos yang berkemungkinan akan dikenakan terhadap Plaintif kelak. Jaminan kos yang dipohon terhadap Plaintif adalah tidak bermerit. Tiada justifikasi untuk membenarkan permohonan jaminan kos oleh Defendan-Defendan. [31] Mahkamah ini menolak permohonan jaminan kos yang dimohon oleh Defendan-Defendan dan tiada kos diawardkan. Bertarikh: 18 Ogos 2025. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC12 Peguam cara − Bagi Pihak Plaintif: En. Najib bin Zakaria Tetuan Najib Hisham Isa, Cyberjaya, Selangor Bagi Pihak Defendan-Defendan: En. Khavenesh A/L Devanandan Tetuan Peter Ling & Co., Kuala Lumpur