Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2851
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
PANG CHOW HUAT – Appellant
Versus
TAN LI SIN – Respondent
[Originating Summon No: WA-24NCvC-132-01/2024]
The court established that a stay of execution requires special circumstances, with an appeal being rendered nugatory being a key factor, particularly in cases involving residential property.
Headnote:(A) Specific Performance – Stay of Execution – The test for granting a stay of execution requires the applicant to demonstrate special circumstances. An appeal being rendered nugatory is a recognized special circumstance. (Paras 14-15)
(B) Settlement Agreement – Breach of Terms – The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership of the property and agreed to transfer it back upon failure to pay the Settlement Sum. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case: The plaintiff and defendant were in a relationship, during which the plaintiff purchased a property for the defendant, later leading to a Settlement Agreement due to a breach. (Paras 5-7)
Findings of Court: The court found special circumstances justifying the stay, as the property in question is residential and the defendant would be rendered homeless if the stay was not granted. (Paras 21-22)
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether special circumstances existed to grant a stay and the implications of transferring the property before the appeal. (Paras 12-13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the property and the potential for the appeal to be rendered nugatory constituted special circumstances warranting a stay. (Paras 20-23)
Result: Stay granted with costs of RM2,000 to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. (Para 37)
JUDGMENT
[Enclosure 66]
Introduction
[1] This is a stay application dated 23 May 2024 [Enclosure 66] by the defendant to stay the orders I have granted, pursuant to an OS [Enclosure 1] in favour of the plaintiff on 14 May 2024, pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[2] The orders I had made on 14 May 2024 pursuant to the OS were:
i. A declaration declaring the defendant has breached cl 4 and 6 of the Settlement Agreement dated 19-01-2023;
ii. A Specific Performance Order be given in accordance to cl 8 of the Settlement Agreement, to require the defendant to sign all the transactional documents to transfer the property bearing the postal address at No 48-06, Pavillion Suites Kuala Lumpur, No 166, Jalan Bukit Bintang, 55100 Kuala Lumpur, registered under the geran number of 79872, and also known as Lot 20027 s 57, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur ("the said property"), in favour of the plaintiff within 14 days from the date of Judgment, as the consequence of the breach of the terms of the Settlement Agreement;
iii. Plaintiff to refund RM940,000 to the defendant within 7 business days from the date the plaintiff is registered as the owner of the property.
iv. Costs of RM10,000 to be deducted from the RM940,000 and paid to the plaintiff.
[3] I had allowed the stay on 30 May 2024 on the ground there are special circumstances as the contested property is a residential and not a commercial property.
[4] The plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal on 30 May 2024. These are my Grounds of Judgment.
Facts Of The Case
[5] The plaintiff a man and the defendant a lady were in a relationship. The lady states they were in a romantic relationship since 2012 until it went sour when the plaintiff allegedly discovered she was seeing another man behind his back. The man contends that they only have a close relationship at a personal and business level.
[6] Despite denying or because of the romantic relationship, the plaintiff bought the defendant an expensive residential suite in an upmarket development called Pavillion Suites Kuala Lumpur, No 166, Jalan Bukit Bintang, 55100 Kuala Lumpur ["Pavillion Suites"] and registered it in her name subject to the following conditions:
i. The defendant was only allowed to use the Pavillion Suites as her personal residence; and
ii. No one can access it without the permission of the plaintiff.
[7] When their relationship went sour for reasons I have outlined above, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 19 January 2023. ("Settlement Agreement").
[8] In the Settlement Agreement the defendant acknowledged that the Pavillion Suites was bought by the plaintiff and agreed to transfer the said property back to the plaintiff if she fails to pay the plaintiff RM1,647,000 by way of two instalments. ("Settlement Sum").
[9] Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the Originating Summon against the defendant for an order to transfer the Pavillion Suites to the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant has breached the Settlement Agreement.
[10] The defendant resisted the Originating Summon on the ground that the Pavillion Suites was a gift to her due to their romantic relationship, that she signed the Settlement Agreement under coercion and by undue influence as the plaintiff had brought two men displaying guns to see her. They threatened her and beat her. [See encl 7 Defendant's Reply Affidavit at paras 12 and 26]
[11] After hearing counsel, I had granted the orders as mentioned earlier in para 2 above in favour of the plaintiff. My Grounds of Judgment is reported in [2024] MLRHU 932. The defendant has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Stay Application
[12] The defendant now asked for an order to stay the orders I have granted pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The defendant in her Supporting Affidavit at encl 67 contends there are special circumstances because if the Pavillion Suites are transferred to the plaintiff pursuant to my order her appeal will
