Back
2021 MarsdenLR 4210
HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
TITANWOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
NCS WOOD PRODUCTS SDN BHD (ENCLS 35 36 37 38 39 & 44) – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: JB-11BNCVC-1-02/2021]
The court has discretion to grant a stay of execution based on special circumstances that do not undermine the successful party's rights to enjoy the fruits of litigation.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Section 73 – Stay of execution – Application for a stay of execution of a magistrate’s dismissal of claim for movable properties. The Appellants failed to establish error in the Magistrate's decision warranting appellate intervention, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. (Paras 3, 16, 84)
(B) The merits of an application for stay of execution rely on demonstrating special circumstances, which must relate to the enforcement of the judgment rather than its validity. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving the status quo while acknowledging the unqualified discretion to grant stay applications under established legal principles. (Paras 73, 104, 112)
Facts of the case: The Execution Creditor secured a judgment against the Execution Debtor for RM 481,541-10. An application for Writ of Seizure and Sale was made, claiming assets belonging to the Claimants, leading to an interpleader summons. The Claimants argued ownership of the seized assets. (Paras 6, 10)
Findings of Court: The Appellants failed to show adequate grounds for a stay of execution pending appeal, leading to the dismissal of the stay application. The Court ordered the RM 72,500 to be held in trust pending resolution of the appeal. (Paras 114)
I. Issues: Whether the Applicants have standing to file for a stay under the relevant rules and whether special circumstances exist to justify such a stay.
II. Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the requirements for applying for a stay under the relevant rules were not met as the Appellants did not demonstrate that they were parties liable for the execution or that special circumstances existed justifying a stay. The emphasis was placed on the principle that the successful party should enjoy the fruits of litigation. (Paras 85, 106)
Result: Application allowed with conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 36)
Introduction
[1] This is an application for a stay of execution vide encl 35, pursuant to O 47 r 1, Rules of and / or O 45 r 11 and / or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, of the decision of this Court given on 28 July 2021.
[2] After a full hearing, the Learned Magistrate dismissed the claim filed by the Claimant for the movable properties attached, sealed and listed by the Court Bailiff pursuant to the Writ Seizure and Sales filed by the Execution Creditor for the execution of Court Order dated 2 July 2020 against the Judgment Debtor (interpleader application);
[3] After hearing the Appeal, this Court ruled that that the Appellants failed to make out a case or show that the Learned Magistrate has erred in her decision that merits appellate intervention.
[4] The Court then dismissed the appeal with cost. The Appellant then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Hence this application vide encl 36.
[5] The Cause Papers are as follows:
i. Notice of Application (Encl 36).
ii. Affidavit-in-support by the applicant / appellant. (Encl 37).
iii. Affidavit-in-opposition by the Respondent. (Encl 38).
iv. Affidavit-in-reply by the applicant. (Encl 39).
v. Supplementary affidavit (Encl 44)
Background Facts
[6] The Execution Creditor ("Respondent") has obtained a Judgment against the Execution Debtor Roxy Heritage Manufacturer Sdn Bhd for RM 481,541-10 with interest thereon and costs (as of 16 December 2020). The matter came before this Court on appeal and after hearing all parties, this Court dismissed the appeal. I was under the impression (and I believe that it was rightly so) that no appeal was lodged.
[7] Following that, there was an application for a Writ of Seizure and Sale and armed with the Judgment of the Magistrates Court (obtained earlier), the Execution Creditor applied for a Writ of Seizure and Sale to be issued.
[8] The Writ of Seizure and Sale was issued by the Court below. On 11 August 2020, the Bailiff attached the following movable assets at the Execution Debtor's place of business at No 54, Tanjung Agas Industrial Estate, 84000 Ledang, Johor: (hereinafter as "Tanjung Agas address") and at the Court Bailiff's satisfaction, attached the movable assets which include machineries and some office furnitures at the said premise.
[9] At the request from the Execution Debtor and upon the agreement from the Respondent, the Court Bailiff did not attach or seal the stocks and/or inventories produced by the Execution Debtor.
NO. ASSETS
1. 4 units of various computers;
2. 4 units of fax/printer;
3. 3 units of fans;
4. 1 unit of photostat machine;
5. 6 units of office table;
6. 10 units of chairs;
7. 1 set of round table and chair;
8. 6 sets of bed + mattress + pillow;
9. 7 units of makeup cabinet;
10. 4 sets of dining table + chair;
11. 2 units of air conditioner;
12. 23 units of hot press machine;
13. 2 units of fork lift;
14. 2 units of glue spreading machine;
15. 2 units of shredding machine;
16. 1 unit of water tank.
[10] Aggrieved by the attachment, the Claimants ("Appellants") lay claim to the assets by filing a Notice to Claim on the basis that assets attached by the Bailiff belong to them and not the Execution Debtor in turn that the Court's Bailiff filed an interpleader summons at the Court below. Titanwood Industries Sdn Bhd and Roxy Bendwood Sdn Bhd then lay claims to the assets by filing a Notice to Claim with the Magistrates Court, on the basis that assets attached by the Bailiff belonged to them and not the Execution Debtor which led to the Court's Bailiff filing the interpleader summons.
[11] The evidence which are to the satisfactions of all parties, including the Court's Bailiff are that the premise of business at No K54, Tanjung Agas Industrial Estate, 84000 Ledang, Johor belonged to / is the place of business at to the Execution Debtor as can be seen in the Record of Appeal filed before the Court based on the following:
a. The Purchase Orders issued by the Execution Debtor stating tha
