COSTS

Interlocutory proceedings

Costs - Interlocutory proceedings - Defendant unsuccessful in striking out writ - Whether plaintiff ought to be able to tax costs forthwith

Dato' Abdullah Hishan bin Haji Mohd Hashim v Sharma Kumari Shukla (No 2) [1999] 6 MLJ 584

In this case, the defendant applied to the court to strike out the plaintiff's writ. The defendant's application was unsuccessful. The plaintiff then applied to the court for an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the interlocutory application.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs of the interlocutory application. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had not been successful in the interlocutory application, and that the defendant had therefore not been put to any expense.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs of the interlocutory application. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had been successful in defeating the defendant's application, and that the defendant had therefore been put to some expense.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to tax the costs forthwith. The court reasoned that the costs of the interlocutory application were relatively small, and that there was no reason why the plaintiff should have to wait until the end of the trial to recover the costs.





Costs - Interlocutory proceedings - Frivolous and vexatious application dismissed with costs - Whether costs payable forthwith or at end of trial

Dato' Abdullah Hishan bin Haji Mohd Hashim v Sharma Kumari Shukla (No 2) [1999] 6 MLJ 584

In this case, the defendant made a frivolous and vexatious application to the court. The application was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff then applied to the court for an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application forthwith.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs of the application forthwith. The defendant argued that the costs of the application were relatively small, and that there was no reason why the plaintiff should have to recover the costs until the end of the trial.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs of the application forthwith. The court reasoned that the defendant's application was frivolous and vexatious, and that the plaintiff had therefore been put to unnecessary expense.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to tax the costs forthwith. The court reasoned that the costs of the application were relatively small, and that there was no reason why the plaintiff should have to wait until the end of the trial to recover the costs