Guiding Clients Through Complex Litigation: Opposing a Stay of Execution & Enforcement

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.

5/5

Share:

More Posts

Handling Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Insights from a Recent Case

Fraudulent misrepresentation can have significant repercussions in business transactions, particularly for SMEs navigating complex business contracts. We recently represented a Polish company specializing in the production, import, and distribution of disposable protective clothing and health and safety products for the food sector. This Client sought recovery of a deposit following allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation against

The Court of Appeal Grants Leave for Our Client’s Appeal: Employment Law Dispute

Recently, the Court of Appeal, comprising The Hon. Justice Datuk See Mee Chun, Hon. Justice Datuk Azhahari Kamal, and Hon. Justice Datuk Wong Kian Kheong, granted leave for our Client to appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision. This development is crucial to our Client’s business operations moving forward. Our Mr. Jonathan K, acted

Finalist in Thomson Reuters’ ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2024

We are pleased to share that ‘CHERN & CO.’ has been named a Finalist for ‘Rising Law Firm of the Year’ in the Law Firm Category. The Thomson Reuters’ ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2024 will recognize the outstanding performance of law firms and in-house teams in Malaysia. The event will bring together leading lawyers and

Our Client Secures Successful Outcome in Lawyer Negligent Case

This case concerns our Client’s successful professional negligence claim against a lawyer. It is a cautionary tale of the consequences of failing to follow a client’s instructions. Whilst the case concerns lawyers, it applies to professional advisers of any specialism. In this case, the Court ruled in our Client’s favour, finding that the said lawyer

Send Us A Message