The necessity for demonstrating special circumstances when seeking a stay of execution hinges on balancing parties' interests without undermining judicial efficacy.

[1] This was 3 applications by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants ("Defendants") respectively for stay of execution of the Judgment and Order dated 8 December 2023 pending their appeals to the Court of Appeal (collectively "the Applications").

[2] considering the submissions of all parties and the applicable legal principles, I allowed a conditional stay. My reasons are as state below.

[A] Salient Background Facts

[3] The salient facts leading to the Applications are as stated below.

[4] The Plaintiff granted a loan of RM24,500,000.00 to the 1st Defendant pursuant to a Moneylending Agreement dated 13 July 2021 ("the Agreement").

[5] The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants executed guarantees to secure repayment of the loan.

[6] Third party charges were provided by Alam Pahlawan Sdn Bhd over land held under HS(D) 37724] PT 183 and by Pavilion Yields Sdn Bhd over 85,720,189 units of redeemable convertible secured notes in Gula Perak Berhad ("Third Party Securities").

[7] The loan was disbursed on 16 July 2021 and was due for repayment on 16 December 2021.

[8] The 1st Defendant defaulted in repaying the loan. On 31 March 2023, the 1st Defendant issued a cheque for RM200,000.00 to the Plaintiff together with a letter stating it would devise a repayment proposal by 31 May 2023.

[9] However, as no further payment were forthcoming, on 4 April 2023, the Plaintiff commenced this action against all Defendants.

[10] On 31 May 2023, the Plaintiff filed a summary judgment application (Enclosure 10). The Plaintiff also filed an application to strike out the 1st and 2nd Defendants' Counterclaims (Enclosure 29).

[11] On 8 December 2023, this Court allowed encls 10 and 29 and essentially ordered the Defendants to pay:

(i) The sum of RM31,776,003.47 due as at 23 May 2023;

(ii) Interest on RM24,500,000.00 at 10% per annum from 24 May 2023 until full settlement;

(iii) Interest on RM25,526,986.30 at 8% per annum from 24 May 2023 until full settlement.

[12] Being dissatisfied, the Defendants filed appeals to the Court of Appeal ("the Appeals") and thereafter filed these applications for stay of execution pending disposal of their appeals.

[B] The Defendants' Arguments

[13] The Applications consist of:

(i) Enclosure 80: The 1st Defendant's stay of application dated 19 January 2024;

(ii) Enclosure 86: The 2nd Defendant's stay application dated 22 January 2024; and

(iii) Enclosure 84: The 3rd Defendant's stay application dated 22 January 2024.

[14] The main grounds relied upon by the Defendants can be summarised as follows:

(i) The Appeals raise novel issues of law regarding:

(a) Whether the Plaintiff can charge interest at 10% per annum on the principal sum after the loan duration has lapsed;

(b) Whether there were breaches of the Moneylenders Act 1951 and Moneylenders (Control and Licensing) Regulations 2003 that would render the Agreement void and unenforceable;

(c) Whether the Plaintiff's claim was premature given the 1st Defendant's payment of RM200,000.00 and request for time to propose a repayment scheme.

(ii) If stay is not granted:

(a) The Defendants face potential winding up proceedings before the Appeals can be heard;

(b) The appeals would be rendered nugatory;

(c) The Defendants would suffer irreparable damage as the judgment sum is substantial;

(d) There are doubts about the Plaintiff's ability to repay the judgment sum if the appeals succeed.

(iii) The Plaintiff would not be prejudiced as it can be compensated by costs and interest if the appeals fail. The Plaintiff also has the Third Party Securities.

[C] The Plaintiff's Response

[15] The Plaintiff opposed the applications on the following grounds:

(