The court ruled that an application for a stay of proceedings must meet the test of 'rare and compelling circumstances,' and such circumstances were not present in this case prompting its dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Leong Wai Hong JC:

Introduction

[1] On 4 April 2022 the Plaintiffs have filed a defamation suit against the Defendants. ["Defamation Suit"]. About 9 months earlier, on 12 July 2021, the 1st Plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the three Defendants here as well as a 4th Defendant by the name of Mohd Fathi bin Abdullah. ["Civil Suit"]. This Civil Suit is fixed for trial before another court from 22 to 24 January 2024.

[2] The Defamation Suit is fixed for trial before me on 23 September 2022, 17 October 2022, 4 November 2022, 14 November 2022 & 15 November 2022.

[3] Four days before the commencement of trial before me, to wit, on 19 September 2022 the Defendants filed an urgent application for the Defamation Suit to be stayed pending the final disposal of the Civil Suit. ["Stay Application"]

[4] Due to the urgency of the Stay Application, I heard parties on 21 September 2022 without requiring parties to file written submissions. I dismissed the Stay Application on the same day. The Defendants have now lodged an appeal to the court of Appeal. These are my Grounds of Judgment.

[5] The issues before me are-

a) What is the test to apply for a stay of proceedings of a suit pending the outcome of another suit?

b) Is the test the same as the test for a stay of execution of orders and judgments and for stay of proceedings pending disposal of appeals?

c) Applying the test, should I grant a stay of proceedings of the Defamation Suit before me pending the outcome of the Civil Suit?

[6] It would appear that the test to be applied for a stay of proceedings has not been settled. I will analyse the relevant cases below.

Background Facts

[7] The Defendants filed the Stay Application for an order that the Defamation Suit be stayed pending the final disposal of the Civil Suit that is fixed for trial in another court from 22 to 24 January 2024.

[8] The Defendants contend a stay should be granted based on the following key facts, which I have reproduced from the Defendants' Notice of Application-

(a) This Stay Application is made at this juncture in light of the filing of the Plaintiffs' Witness Statement of Hamidon Bin Abdullah ("Plaintiffs' Witness Statement") where it has been made obvious that the Plaintiffs intend on raising the issue of the Defendants' alleged negligence under the Nadayu 801 Project, a matter that is also made a central issue as reflected in the Civil Suit.

(b) The 1st Plaintiff, in opposing the 1st Defendant's claim for its architectural fees, has commenced the Civil Suit in the Kuala Lumpur High court alleging that, amongst other, the contract between the 1st Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, in the Nadayu 801 Project is illegal on the basis the 1st Defendant has allegedly appointed an unqualified architect to act on behalf of the 1st Defendant.

(c) It is apparent from the Plaintiffs' Witness Statement that the Plaintiffs are attempting to raise the same issue of the Defendants' alleged negligence in appointing En Fathi for the Nadayu 801 Project that was raised in the Civil Suit to be made as an issue in this Defamation Suit.

(d) In the Plaintiffs' attempt to raise similar issues as in the Civil Suit, there would be a risk for duplicity of proceedings where two different findings would be made regarding the same issue.

(e) This Stay Application is made in good faith and in order to avoid duplicity of proceedings as well as to ensure a fair decision on the issue of the Defendants' alleged negligence under the Nadayu 801 Project.

(f) This Stay Application will not cause any prejudice and/or injustice to the Plaintiffs which cannot be compensated with cost as the Plaintiffs will still have the opportunity to be heard for both the Defamation Suit and Civil Suit.

(g) Accordingly, the Defamation Suit ought to be stayed pending the final disposal of the Civil Suit.

[9] The full facts in support of the application have been set out in the supporting affidavit of Ar Azim Bin Abdul Aziz dated 19 September 2022.

[10] The Plaintiffs filed an affi