SELVARAJAN A/L VEERIAH v 1. ) BANGSAR AMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 2. ) KARTHIGASU A/L K. RATNASINGAM 3. ) FOO JIA-HOU 4. ) ANG LING LING 5. ) ADRIAN HO TUCK DJI 6. ) RUBAN SATKUNA NATHAN 7. ) PLANET GARDENS SDN BHD 8. ) LIEW TZE HANN 9. ) ISAAC DANIEL PIHAK KETIGA BAWANI A/P VEERIAH

Case Significance

Illustrates the security-for-costs jurisdiction and the enforcement of an unless order in strata-related litigation, where a plaintiff who neither furnishes the ordered security nor participates in the proceedings faces the striking out of his claim.

This High Court decision in Kuala Lumpur sets out the reasons for ordering security for costs against a plaintiff, and the consequences of his failure to comply. The plaintiff, an individual proprietor of a parcel in a strata development, had sued the development's management corporation together with a number of other parties, including individuals and a company, in a dispute that touched on the conduct and audit of the maintenance and sinking fund accounts and the scope of any duty of care owed to an individual proprietor. Several defendants applied for security for costs. The court allowed those applications and ordered the plaintiff to furnish security of RM50,000 to the first and second defendants and a further RM50,000 to the third to sixth defendants, to be paid within fourteen days to the respective solicitors and held as stakeholders until the action was disposed of. The size of the security reflected the number of separate defendants the plaintiff had joined and the costs each would incur in defending the claim through to its disposal, and the court was satisfied that an order was plainly justified on the material before it. The plaintiff's claim against those defendants was stayed pending the furnishing of security, and the court made an 'unless' order providing that the claim would stand struck out after six weeks if the plaintiff failed to comply. The court explained that it had been abundantly clear that security ought to be ordered, and that when the plaintiff did not comply — having by then given notice to act in person and failed to attend court — it was constrained to make the consequential orders sought, drawing on its powers under the Rules of Court 2012 to act where a party fails to attend a case-management session. The judgment illustrates the operation of the security-for-costs jurisdiction and the enforcement of an unless order where a plaintiff neither furnishes the security ordered nor participates in the proceedings.