The court ruled that an interim stay, granted without full disclosure, should be discontinued when the appeal becomes academic due to subsequent agreements among parties.

JUDGMENT

(In Relation To An Ad Interim Stay Order)

Shahnaz Sulaiman J:

[1] On 7 June 2024, this court granted an interim stay over the Impugned Decisions (as hereinafter defined), pending the application for stay by the applicants be heard in the presence of all parties, on an inter parte basis. The putative third respondent, Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd who was an intervener in this judicial review application filed an appeal.

[2] The appeal filed by the putative third respondent is in connection of this court in encl 15 to grant an interim stay.

Background Facts

[3] The applicants are residents in an area known as Bukit Jelutong, located in Shah Alam, Selangor. The applicants filed an application for judicial review against the decisions of the putative first and second respondents:

(i) to approve a development order dated 6 September 2023 on a piece of land known as No. 5A (Lot 80927) Bukti Jelutong, Seksyen U8 Shah Alam ; and

(ii) the Government of Selangor Gazette no 2642 dated 7 July 2022.

(Collectively referred to as "Impugned Decisions")

[4] The applicants had on 6 June 2024, filed an Ex-Parte application in encl 15, coupled with a certificate of urgency, seeking an order from this court for an interim stay of execution of the Impugned Decisions until the full and final disposal of the substantive judicial review application.

[5] On 7 June 2024, notwithstanding the prayer sought by the applicants, this court granted an interim stay until the stay application is heard inter parte with the involvement of all parties. This decision of this court is now the subject matter of this appeal.

Prelude

[6] At the outset, this court must state that this appeal by the putative third respondent against the order for interim stay is academic. The reasons for this are as follows.

[7] On 15 July 2024, the putative third respondent filed an application in encl 38 to vary the interim stay order in order to have certain works which the putative third respondent termed as "precursors" to the actual project which is the subject of the development order, to be carried out.

[8] On 24 July 2024, parties had reached an agreement which was duly recorded by this court. The variation is that the putative third respondent would be allowed to carry out permitted works.

[9] Hence, the ad interim stay order which is the subject matter of this appeal had been varied, with the consent of all parties.

[10] When this court queried if this subject matter of the appeal being rendered academic following the variation of the ad interim stay order, the court was informed by the putative third respondent that the appeal still stands.

[11] The applicant said they had yet to take instruction and will raise objections if necessary.

[12] The putative first respondent stated that they had no instructions as to the appeal as it was between the applicant and the putative third respondent.

[13] The Attorney General's Chambers were of the view that it did not involve them.

[14] The consent order to vary the ad interim stay this court granted was in force until 12 August 2024.

[15] Subsequently, on 12 August 2024, this court heard arguments from all parties on the applicant's application for ad interim stay, in the presence of all parties. The putative third respondent prayed for the ad interim stay to bed is continued.

[16] Having heard and considered the submissions from the applicant, the putative first respondent and putative third respondent (putative second respondent has no objections), pertaining to the continuation of the ad interim stay, this court found there was no full and frank disclosure at the time the ad interim stay was granted.

[17] The ad interim stay was granted without full and frank disclosure particularly to the status and ownership of the land in that the land in question was a private land.

[18] This court also found that should this court find for the applicants at the substantive judicial review, the putative third respondent had undertaken to restore