Court DecisionMY-HCIn force

/akn/my/judgment/high-court/2026/79891b50-69e3-437d-a265-b0a6b7abd224

Yang yang v E Chia Qi (WA-22NCC-839-12/2025)

High Court of Malaysia18 May 2026WA-22NCC-839-12/2025

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

And

Subsection

(1) E CHIA QI (NRIC: 860929-04-5014)

Subsection

(2) YEW KEOK FONG (NRIC: 520308-71-5192)

Subsection

(3) YEOH JING WEI (NRIC: 840222-08-5639)

Subsection

(4) LIM KIM MING (NRIC: 660404-10-7589) ... DEFENDANTS S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. INTRODUCTION

This is the Court's decision on two interlocutory applications for security for costs ("SFC") heard together: Enclosure 10 ("Encl. 10") by the 1st to 3rd Defendants, and Enclosure 11 ("Encl. 11") by the 4th Defendant, both under Order 23 rule 1(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). Both applications are allowed, with quantum reduced from the sums prayed for.

B. Background

The Plaintiff, Yang Yang, is a PRC citizen holding an MM2H visa. She claims to be the beneficial owner of shares in Yang Commerce Sdn Bhd ("the Company") held on trust by the 1st Defendant, E Chia Qi, and the 2nd Defendant, Yew Keok Fong (current directors and shareholders), and the 3rd Defendant, Yeoh Jing Wei (former director), under a Deed of Trust dated 9 January 2018. The 4th Defendant, Lim Kim Ming, is the Company Secretary, alleged to have dishonestly assisted in the breach of trust. The 1st to 3rd Defendants have filed a counterclaim to cancel that same Deed of Trust.

By Encl. 10, the 1st to 3rd Defendants seek SFC of RM50,000.00 each (total RM150,000.00). By Encl. 11, the 4th Defendant seeks S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg RM25,000.00. The basis of both applications is that Yang Yang is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction.

C. Ordinary Residence

The threshold question is whether Yang Yang is "ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction" under O. 23 r. 1(1)(a) ROC 2012. She is a PRC citizen. She holds an MM2H visa which expires in November 2026, and her social visa expires in February 2027. She was previously uncontactable until she filed this suit. On these facts, this Court is satisfied that Yang Yang's ordinary residence remains the PRC. Her physical presence in Malaysia is temporary and visa-dependent. The preliminary objection that the Defendants failed to specify the sub-limb of O. 23 r. 1 is rejected — the thrust of both applications is plain, and any ambiguity is one of form only, not substance: O. 1A ROC 2012.

D. Exercise Of Discretion

(i) Enforcement Risk and Absence of Assets 5. The decisive consideration in this case is that the PRC is not a reciprocating country under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ("REJA"). Should the Defendants succeed at trial, they would have no direct avenue of enforcement against Yang Yang in the PRC and would be compelled to institute fresh proceedings there with no guarantee of recognition or recovery. S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg This is not a theoretical risk — it is real and substantial. This factor alone, in the judgment of this Court, outweighs all competing considerations raised by Yang Yang in resistance to these applications.

Compounding this, Yang Yang has adduced no credible evidence of independent unencumbered personal assets in Malaysia. The only assets she points to are the shares and funds in Yang Commerce Sdn Bhd — the very res of this dispute. Assets that are themselves the subject matter of litigation cannot serve as satisfactory security: Mohammed Shabaz Khan. There is, in effect, nothing in this jurisdiction against which a costs order could be enforced.

Subparagraph

(ii) Counterclaim 7. This Court accepts that the 1st to 3rd Defendants' counterclaim is founded on the self-same Deed of Trust as the Plaintiff's claim. The factual matrix of their defence and counterclaim is, in substance, identical. Ordering SFC at the quantum prayed for would unjustly assist them in prosecuting their own counterclaim: Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd; Berjaya Air Sdn Bhd. This consideration justifies a significant reduction in the quantum for the 1st to 3rd Defendants, though it does not displace the order altogether. S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg

Subparagraph

(iii) Quantum 8. Neither the 1st to 3rd Defendants nor the 4th Defendant furnished a draft Bill of Costs or any particularised breakdown. The sums prayed for are accordingly not justified at the quantum sought. Having regard to the nature of this matter, the stage of proceedings, the overlapping counterclaim, and the principle that SFC must not be oppressive, this Court fixes SFC at RM10,000.00 per Defendant. This sum is proportionate, reflects the standard range for interlocutory security in matters of this nature, and affords the Defendants a measure of practical protection without stifling the Plaintiff's claim. E. DECISION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court orders as follows: a) Enclosure 10 is allowed. Yang Yang shall provide security for costs in favour of the 1st Defendant (E Chia Qi), the 2nd Defendant (Yew Keok Fong), and the 3rd Defendant (Yeoh Jing Wei) in the sum of RM10,000.00 each, totalling RM30,000.00. b) Enclosure 11 is allowed. Yang Yang shall provide security for costs in favour of the 4th Defendant (Lim Kim Ming) in the sum of RM10,000.00. S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg c) Security shall be furnished by way of solicitor's undertaking, bank guarantee, or such other form as agreed between the parties, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, failing which the Plaintiff's claim shall stand stayed pending compliance. d) Costs of these applications shall be costs in the cause. Dated 16hb June 2026 (MOHAMAD REDZUAN BIN IDRUS) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT NCC 5 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: Teh Zhi Yuan (Jh Lew & Associates (Telok Panglima Garang)) For the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants: Rezan Bin Ezra, Aw Kai Xiang, Aisyah Farhah binti Adnan & Tan Sue Hua (Lee & Poh Partnership (Kuala Lumpur)) For the 4th Defendant: Siew Jun Sheng (Siew Jun Sheng & Partners (Kuala Lumpur))

List Of Cases Referred

Ashin Sdn Bhd v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors [1999] 5

Mlj 663.

Berjaya Air Sdn Bhd & Anor v Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] MLJU 1999.

Biaxis (M) Sdn Bhd v Sonata Resources Sdn Bhd [2024] MLJU

475 (hc).

Customer Loyalty Solutions Sdn Bhd v Advance Information Marketing Berhad & Anor [2017] MLJU 1919.

Ever Right Sdn Bhd v Akitek Bandaran (Sabah) Sdn Bhd [2009]

Mlju 430.

Haidakota (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Tiam Chai [2008] MLJU 654.

Jurong Town Corporation v Wishing Star Ltd [2004] 2 SLR(R)

427

427.

Kasturi Palm Products v Palmex Industries Sdn Bhd [1986] 2 MLJ 310. S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg 8 9. Merck KGaa v Xtalic Corp [2019] MLJU 146.

Mohammed Shabaz Khan v Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] MLJU 4770.

North Plaza Sdn Bhd v United Securities Sdn Bhd [2011] MLJ

631

631.

Yu Gouqin v Yap Kwee Yin [2020] MLJU 616.

Statutes Referred

Order 1A and Order 23 Rule 1(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012)

Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Act 99)

Companies Act 2016 S/N ksvbyTxxJEDq9uezXVJQg

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: 18 May 2026
Case number: WA-22NCC-839-12/2025
Coram: YA Tuan Mohamad Redzuan bin Idrus
Practice area: Security for Costs – The primary interlocutory remedy sought by all defendants – Ordinarily Resident Out of Jurisdiction – The foundational threshold requirement under Order 23 Rule 1(1)(a) ROC 2012 - Whether a foreign citizen holding a temporary, visa-dependent status (such as an MM2H or social visa) satisfy the definition of being "ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction". Enforcement Risk – The practical danger of being unable to execute a domestic costs order in a foreign state – Discretionary Evaluation of Assets and Enforcement Risks – How should the Court exercise its judicial discretion when a foreign plaintiff possesses no independent, unencumbered local assets and resides in a non-REJA country – Reciprocating Country – The statutory status of a foreign nation under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA). Res of the Dispute – Disputed property or shares being litigated that cannot double as a financial security. Overlapping Counterclaim – A defensive claim based on the same factual matrix that justifies reducing security quantum – Impact of a Counterclaim on the Quantum of Security – Whether should the court grant the full quantum of security requested if the defendants have filed a counterclaim arising from the exact same factual matrix and document (e.g., a Deed of Trust). Stifling a Claim – The oppressive effect of setting an overly high security quantum that effectively bars access to justice
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 22 Jun 2026
Source ID: c9dbcb92-713c-4f24-83ab-db9ecd754942

Catchwords

Security for Costs – The primary interlocutory remedy sought by all defendants – Ordinarily Resident Out of Jurisdiction – The foundational threshold requirement under Order 23 Rule 1(1)(a) ROC 2012 - Whether a foreign citizen holding a temporary, visa-dependent status (such as an MM2H or social visa) satisfy the definition of being "ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction". Enforcement Risk – The practical danger of being unable to execute a domestic costs order in a foreign state – Discretionary Evaluation of Assets and Enforcement Risks – How should the Court exercise its judicial discretion when a foreign plaintiff possesses no independent, unencumbered local assets and resides in a non-REJA country – Reciprocating Country – The statutory status of a foreign nation under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA). Res of the Dispute – Disputed property or shares being litigated that cannot double as a financial security. Overlapping Counterclaim – A defensive claim based on the same factual matrix that justifies reducing security quantum – Impact of a Counterclaim on the Quantum of Security – Whether should the court grant the full quantum of security requested if the defendants have filed a counterclaim arising from the exact same factual matrix and document (e.g., a Deed of Trust). Stifling a Claim – The oppressive effect of setting an overly high security quantum that effectively bars access to justice

Parties

YANG YANG - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
1. ) E CHIA QI - defendant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) YEW KEOK FONG - defendant - ejudgment_parties
3. ) YEOH JING WEI - defendant - ejudgment_parties
4. ) LIM KIM MING - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

Yang yang v E Chia Qi (WA-22NCC-839-12/2025)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

And

B. Background

C. Ordinary Residence

D. Exercise Of Discretion

List Of Cases Referred

Mlj 663.

475 (hc).

Mlju 430.

Statutes Referred

Something wrong on this page?

Yang yang v E Chia Qi (WA-22NCC-839-12/2025)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

And

B. Background

C. Ordinary Residence

D. Exercise Of Discretion

List Of Cases Referred

Mlj 663.

475 (hc).

Mlju 430.

Statutes Referred

Something wrong on this page?