A monetary judgment does not automatically warrant a stay of execution pending appeal unless special circumstances can be demonstrated, as outlined by section 73 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

A. Introduction

[1] This is the Defendant's application filed in the Writ Summons: 22C-8-04/2015 via Enclosure No 161 for a Stay of Execution of the enforcement of the Judgment dated 19 December 2022 pending the disposal of the Defendant's appeal at the Court of Appeal via Enclosure No 160.

[2] The Defendant and the Plaintiff had filed their respective Affidavits and Submissions. Since parties had relied on their respective written submissions, with the agreement of the parties, the hearing of this application was converted to a decision date instead. Therefore,I delivered my decision on 11 June 2025 allowing a Conditional Stay of Execution of the enforcement of the Judgment.

[3] The Defendant being dissatisfied with part of my decision had filed a Notice of Appeal against part my decision for which I now write the grounds of judgment.

B. Brief Background

[4] The Plaintiff was engaged by the Defendant (being the main contractor) as a sub-contractor to perform Pavement Works and Road Furniture works for upgrading works for Federal Road 5 (FR5) from Tanjong Karang to Sabak Bernam, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("the Project") for the contract sum amounting to RM104,117,800.40 (including total GST amounting to RM5,893,460.40).

[5] Subsequently, the parties revised the contract sum to RM91,844,175.22. The Defendant alleged that there was a further reduction to the contract sum RM85,058,305.43 (inclusive of GST) which the Plaintiff denied.

[6] It was the Plaintiff's claim that there is a balance sum of RM23,354,170.67 for the works done by it, inclusive of Retention Sum, which the Defendant denied. The Defendant claimed that there were backcharges/deductions which it had to make against the Plaintiff's claims and upon the same being made, there was no balance due to the Defendant.

[7] The Defendant had also terminated the Plaintiff's contract due to delay in completion and poor performance, which the Plaintiff claimed to be unlawful. As a result of the termination of the Plaintiff's contract, the Plaintiff claimed for loss of profit amounting to RM 1,583,059.55. As such, the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant was for a total of RM24,937,230.22 [(RM23.354,170.67 + RM 1,583,059.55) inclusive of Retention Sum of RM4,592,208.75].

[8] The Defendant on the other hand claimed that it has paid to the Plaintiff a total of RM62,521,926.86 inclusive of all the backcharges/deductions for the Defendant's advance payments, stamping of contract documents, consultant's overtime claim, patching of potholes, roadline marking, road stud, compensation for accident and fine for breaching Site's Safety Requirements and including the Retention Sum of RM4,592,208.75.

[9] After trial, this Court found that the Plaintiff's termination was lawful and as such did not allow the Plaintiff's claim for loss of profit arising from the termination. This Court also found that the contract sum between parties was RM91,844,175.22. Therefore, this Court allowed the Plaintiff's claims as follows:

i. The Plaintiffs claim of RM23.354,170.67 inclusive of GST and Retention Sum for works done to be paid by the Defendant within 30 days from the date of the Judgment.

ii. An interest of 5% per annum to be imposed on the judgment sum of RM23,354,170.67 from the date of the judgment till the full settlement of the same.

iii. Cost of RM40,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant subject to allocatur fee.

[10] Being dissatisfied with this Court's decision, the Defendant has filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, for which Grounds of Judgment ha