[1] Enclosure 17, was the application of the defendant for a stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration under s. 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (the new Arbitration Act) . Enclosure 18 was the application of the plaintiff for summary judgment under O. 14 of the Rules of the High 1980 for RM33.9 million pursuant to the final accounts statements and final certificates for work done under building contracts. I heard the matter and there after allowed encl. 17 on terms but made no order on encl. 18 and I append below my reasons for so doing.

[2] The question that first arose as a preliminary issue is whether encl. 18 should be heard first ie, the plaintiff's application for summary judgment or encl. 17, the defendant's application for a stay, and the position appears to be under the old Arbitration Act, that the application for stay should be considered first and only if a stay is not granted, then only should it proceed to hear the application for summary judgment but both applications should not be heard together (Trans Resources Corp Sdn Bhd v. Sanwell Corp. & Anor, 1998 MarsdenLR 2716 ).

[3] To appreciate the impact of the change of the law, I ha