Jonathan K acted as counsel for our Client, a Singapore-based PLC, in this matter. The Kuala Lumpur High Court, presided by YA Tuan Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff, ruled in favor of our Client after a full trial. On 11th June 2024, the High Court ordered the Defendants to pay our Client the following, among others:
- RM6,637,737.00 in damages
- RM100,000.00 in aggravated damages
- RM200,000.00 in exemplary damages
Additional damages for fraud and conspiracy to be assessed by the Court. The Defendants have since appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.
Background of the Case
Our Client faced multiple procedural developments throughout this case. After previously applying for an interlocutory measure related to the Plaintiff’s financial status, the Defendants filed a Stay of Execution and Enforcement Application (“Stay Application“) as part of their post-judgment strategy. Just a day before the Stay hearing, the Defendants submitted new evidence, informing the High Court that they had begun legal actions against 5 third parties. This step added further complexity to the case and reflected the evolving nature of the proceedings, aiming to demonstrate that the Defendants’ appeal had real substance and was not simply a ‘delay tactic’.
If granted, the Defendants’ Stay Application would have prevented our Client from enforcing the High Court judgment, pending their appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Grounds of the Defendants’ Submission
The Defendants’ arguments for the Stay Application included:
- Merit of the Appeal: The Defendants argued that their appeal was substantial, supported by the initiation of proceedings against third parties. This was intended to show the Court that their case had broader legal implications that justified a stay.
- Risk of Irrecoverability: They claimed that, as the Plaintiff is a foreign entity, recovering the payment could be difficult if the appeal succeeded.
- Irreparable Harm: Immediate enforcement, they said, would lead to severe financial hardship.
- Preservation of Appeal Rights: A stay, according to the Defendants, was necessary to prevent the judgment amount from being spent before the appeal was resolved.
Our Strategic Response: Challenging the Defendants’ Credibility
A cornerstone of our Client’s opposition in this case was focusing on and challenging the ‘CREDIBILITY’ of the Defendants’ claims. We reminded the High Court that the Defendants had previously pursued similar grounds in their previous interlocutory application, which had been rejected. We urged the Court to approach the Defendants’ Stay Application with caution and highlighted the following points:-
- Speculative Concerns: The Defendants’ argument regarding irrecoverability lacked solid evidence. We pointed out that the judgment could be enforced in Singapore through established legal frameworks, mitigating the risk they claimed.
- Lack of Special Circumstances: We referenced past court’s decisions to demonstrate that speculative claims did not meet the “special circumstances” threshold required for a Stay.
- Right to Immediate Enforcement: We emphasized that a successful litigant should be entitled to enforce their judgment. The Defendants did not provide credible evidence that the Plaintiff would misuse the funds or obstruct recovery efforts if the appeal succeeded.
- Merits of the Appeal: While acknowledging that the Defendants mentioned the merits of their appeal, we emphasized that established precedents indicate merits alone do not justify a stay. The focus must remain on whether special circumstances exist.
Court’s Decision and Impact
On 22nd October 2024, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed the Defendants’ Stay Application with costs. Despite the Defendants’ last-minute Affidavit and claims about the third-party proceedings, the High Court found that there were no special circumstances to justify a stay and that the Defendants’ arguments did not have sufficient supporting evidence. This dismissal allowed our Client to move forward with the enforcement of the judgment without delay.
Note: This Article does not constitute legal advice. For further information, don’t hesitate to contact us.