Special circumstances must be shown to grant a stay on planning permission, balancing public interest with the rights of parties involved.

[6] Upon hearing the same, the appellant filed another interlocutory application, for stay of the implementation of the planning permission granted to the planning applicant. The appellant's stay application is joined and supported by several (but not all) of the other appellants in the connected cases. The decision which will be delivered below, naturally, has a binding effect on the appellants in the other related appeals as well.

[7] The appellant heavily criticised the planning applicant for lack of bona fide in giving the wrong information during the earlier hearing of the discovery application. I do not think such criticism is justified in the context, for I am satisfied that it was a case of a genuine mistake or miscommunication, which the planning applicant had quickly rectified upon realising its mistake. No adverse inference against the planning applicant is warranted, out of this episode.

[8] After hearing arguments from learned counsels for the parties regarding the stay-application, a 'partial stay' was granted (which I shall later explain). Brief grounds were given ex tempore, when the decision was pronounced. I now provide the full grounds below.

A. Background

[9] The subject land measures approximately 3.384 acres, located at Lebuhraya Pykett. It had a double storey detached house on it, bearing postal address No 20, Lebuhraya Pykett, 10400 Pulau Pinang ('the old building'), which was built decades ago. The old building was not classified or designated as a 'heritage building'. Nevertheless, the appellant claims that it had considerable historical value, and was deserving of preservation. This is disputed by the planning applicant, who had described the old building as a 'dilapidated unoccupied small bungalow' (see Mah Sing Group Bhd's announcement dated 2 December 2009), presumably of little or no historical value or interest.

[10] The subject land was formerly owned by Khaw Bian Cheng Sdn Bhd ('the previous owner'). The appellant says that the previous owner had applied for planning permission to demolish the old building. The appellant says that she knew about it because she was notified of the application, and she had objected to the same. That application was later rejected by the respondent - see paras 9(d) and (f) of exh 'A2' in the appellant's affidavit dated 20 May 2015. The planning applicant has not disputed these information, at this stage at least.

[11] On second December 2009, the planning applicant contracted to buy the subject land from the previous owner, with the intention of developing it.

[12] On 3 August 2010, ie not long after the planning applicant became the owner of the subject land, events took a rare and unexpected turn. Without obtaining the requisite planning permission, the planning applicant demolished the old building. It is not disputed that such an act is unlawful. They were taken to task for it, and were charged in the magistrates' court, under s 19(1) of the Act. They pleaded guilty to the charge, and were fined a sum of RM6,000. The public prosecutor appealed to the High court (against sentencing), but withdrew the appeal when it came up for hearing.

[13] Pursuant to s 27(2)(a) of the Act, the respondent also issued a notice dated 11 February 2011 to the planning applicant ('the rebuild order'), requiring the planning applicant to restore or reinstate the old building on the subject land. The planning applicant has not complied with the rebuild order, despite the effluxion of a few years. The respondent has offered no evidence that it has taken any step to either enforce or withdraw the rebuild order. These are matters to which I shall later return