Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3306
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMMAD ANSAR ABDUL RASHID – Appellant
Versus
CHONG CHUAN LONG & ANOR – Respondent
[Companies (Winding-Up) No: WA-28PW-47-01/2024]
The refusal of the stay application became academic following the dismissal of the primary application.
Headnote:This judgment concerns an application by the Applicant for orders regarding a Validation Order. The Applicant sought to set aside a Validation Order and stay its execution pending another application. The court dismissed the request for a stay of execution, considering the academic nature of the appeal following the dismissal of the setting aside prayer. The court will provide separate written grounds regarding the dismissal of the other prayers.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application details and orders requested. (Para 1) |
| 2. dismissal of stay application deemed academic. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. costs awarded against the applicant. (Para 4) |
Introduction
[1] Enclosure 1 is an application by Mohammad Ansar bin Abdul Rashid ("the Applicant") for the following orders:
(i) That the ex-parte Validation Order dated 12 December 2023 obtained by the Respondent at the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Post Winding-Up No. WA-28PW-523-12/2023 (PW523) (Validation Order) be set-aside; and
(ii) In connection to the sub-paragraph (i) above, the decision of the Respondent in causing Nautical Wealth Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) to enter into the Consent Judgment dated 16 November 2023 recorded before the Shah Alam High Court for Civil Suit No: BA-22C-24- 07/2020 which was heard together with Shah Alam High Court Civil Suit No: BA-22C-41-09/2019 be reversed.
(iii) That the execution of the Validation Order be stayed in the interim pending the full and final disposal of this application.
Decision Of This Court On Prayer 1 (iii)
[2] On 29 January 2024, this Court dismissed the application in prayer 1(iii) which is for a stay of execution of the Validation Order dated 12 December 2023 pending disposal of the application in prayer 1(i) for the setting-aside of the said Validation Order.
[3] The Applicant has appealed against my decision to dismiss the application for a stay of execution of the Validation Order.
[4] Prayer 1(i) and prayer 1(ii) in encl 1 came up for decision on 24 October 2024. I dismissed the two prayers in encl 1 with costs to be paid by the Applicant to both the Respondent and the Intervener.
[5] Since prayer 1(i) for setting aside the Validation Order has been dismissed, the appeal against my decision in refusing to grant a stay of execution of the Validation Order pending the disposal of the application to set-aside the said order appears to be academic. Thus there would be no purpose in providing grounds to justify the refusal of the stay application.
