The court ruled that the mere possibility of a successful appeal does not justify a stay of proceedings, emphasizing the need for timely resolution of cases.

(Stay Pending Appeal)

Prelusion

[1] On 21 July 2023, I dismissed the Plaintiff's (P) application under Order 33 of the Rules Of Court 2012 to pose certain questions to Court. If the answers to the questions favour P, then P sought an Order to enter Judgment against the 2nd Defendant (D2).

[2] As I dismissed P's application, P appealed to the Court Of Appeal.

[3] P then files this application to stay all the proceedings in this suit until his appeal to the Court Of Appeal is determined.

[4] Should I allow the stay?

The Current Status Of This Suit

[5] It is now September 2023. The trial of this suit is fixed for 19 and 26 October, and 20 to 23 November 2023. In other words, the trial will start in a month.

[6] The trial dates were fixed at the Pre-Trial Case Management in July 2023 (on 26 July 2023). Parties were directed to comply with pre-trial directions to get the pre-trial documents ready for trial. The pre-trial documents include the Bundle Of Pleadings, the Common Bundles Of Documents, the Chronology Of Facts, the respective Summaries Of Case, the parties' List Of Witnesses, the Common Agreed Facts and the Agreed Issues To Be Tried.

[7] Directions for the filing and exchange of Witness Statements were also given, in preparation for trial.

[8] Enclosure 307 is P's Application under O 33 of the Rules Of Court 2012 to pose questions about the validity of the sanctions that D2 and their current solicitors: Messrs. CP Ang & Company (CP Ang) obtained from the Director General Of Insolvency (DGI), for D2 to defend against this suit and to be represented by CP Ang.

[9] On 21 July 2023, I dismissed P's Enclosure 307. P appealed to the Court Of Appeal (P's O 33 Appeal). P's Appeal is awaiting a hearing and determination in the Court Of Appeal.

[10] P files this encl 339 - P's Application to stay all proceedings in this suit, including the pre-trial directions, the Witness Statement directions, and the trial itself.

Summary Of Previous Proceedings

[11] This suit has gone up to the Court Of Appeal three times. First, the High Court dismissed P's application for summary judgment. P appealed to the Court Of Appeal. P eventually withdrew this appeal.

[12] Next, the trial of this suit was conducted and concluded. The High Court granted judgment in favour of the Defendants ie, P's claim was dismissed. P appealed to the Court Of Appeal. The Court Of Appeal ruled that this suit should be re-tried by another High Court Judge.

[13] Then, back at the High Court, P filed two applications - (i)an application under O 27 r 3 of the Rules Of Court 2012 for a judgment on the admission of facts against D2; and (ii)an application to strike out D2's Defence and accordingly enter judgment against D2. The High Court found in P's favour ie, entered separate judgments against each of the Defendants. Both Defendants appealed to the Court Of Appeal. The Court Of Appeal allowed both appeals ie, the judgments were set aside, and again reverted this suit to be tried at the High Court.

[14] P filed two Motions for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the decisions of the Court Of Appeal. One of the Motions was dismissed. P withdrew the other Motion.

[15] This suit is now back at the High Court for trial.

Summary Of The Pertinent Facts Surrounding This Suit

[16] P obtained a Grant of Probate under N. Arumugam Pilla