Bekalan Sains P & C Sdn Bhd V Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Sdn Bhd

  

Download PDF Here

MALAYSIA

 

IN THE HIGH COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR COMMERCIAL TRIAL NO. D1-22-2531-1999

 

Between

 

BEKALAN SAINS P & C SDN BHD … PLAINTIFF

 

And

 

BANK BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA SDN BHD …DEFENDANT

 

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE Y.A. DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER

 

IN CHAMBERS

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. This is my judgment in relation to the plaintiff’s application for stay of execution confined to my order for costs amounting to RM 100,000.00 to the defendant.

 

2. The plaintiff complains that I made an order for costs upon the dismissal

 

of the plaintiffs suit without affording the plaintiff or defendant the

 

opportunity to address the issue as to costs. The judgment is reported in

 

[2010] 1 M.L.J. 329. I take the view that the plaintiffs argument is

 

misconceived. In any judgment there is a duty upon the court to decide

 

on the issue of liability, quantum, interests, costs, etc, at the end of the

 

case. All these items stated cannot be decided on installment basis,

 

though it does not prohibit the court from asking counsels what should

 

1

 

be the costs if they have failed to address the issue. However, there is greater duty in the interest of client for the counsels for the parties to address all these issues failing which there is no obligation in law on the part of the court to invite counsels to make submission of these issues.

 

3. It is trite that costs are at the discretion of the court. And the trial judge is the best person to decide on the issue of costs as he would have gone through the papers in detail to ascertain the amount. Negligent conduct of counsels for not addressing the issue of costs cannot be a ground for stay of execution or a ground of complaint. That does not mean the plaintiff is prohibited from appealing on the issue of costs to the Court of Appeal relating to quantum and not the exercise of the court’s discretion on the issue of costs.

 

4. I agree with the defendant’s submission there is no special circumstances as advocated in Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2003] 4 CLJ1 to allow stay of execution.

 

5. For reason stated above I dismiss the plaintiffs enclosure 107 with costs. The plaintiff to pay the defendant costs in the sum of RM 2,000.00.

 

I hereby order so.

 

2

 

(Y.A. DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER)

 

Judge

 

High Court (Commercial Division)

 

KUALA LUMPUR

 

Date: 5th March 2010

 

For the Plaintiff: Ranjan Chandran; M/s Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik For the Defendant: K.H. Yeap; M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill

 

3

PDF Source: http://kl.kehakiman.gov.my