The court dismissed the stay application due to procedural improprieties and reaffirmed that injunctions against government entities are impermissible, emphasizing proper adherence to legal processes.

The Parties

[1] The applicant is the registered owner of all that piece of land known as hS(M) 17794 PT No 20513, Mukim Klang, Selangor, with a postal address at No 2, Jalan Tun Dr Ismail, Taman Sri Andalas 41200 Klang, Selangor ("the said property").

[2] The 1st respondent is the Minister of Finance. The 2nd respondent is the Central Bank of Malaysia.

[3] The 3rd respondent is the Government of Malaysia ("GOM"). The 4th respondent, Resolution Alliance Sdn Bhd ("RASB"), is in the business of investing or acquiring non-performing assets of financial institutions.

[4] The 5th respondent, Malayan Banking Berhad ("Maybank"), is the bank that extended two separate loans ("the Loans") to the applicant and the chargee with respect to the said property.

[5] On 17 April 2008, Maybank and RASB obtained a vesting order from the Kuala Lumpur High Court for the sale and transfer to RASB of part of Maybank's assets, namely the rights, benefits and interests in inter alia all the Non-Performing Loans ("NPLs"), which included the Loans extended to the applicant by Maybank.

[6] Sometimes in September 2020, the applicant received a notice dated 3 August 2020 from the Klang Land Administrator that the said property would be auctioned off. In view of the vesting order, the RASB is now the chargee in respect of the said property.

The Background Facts

[7] On 13 February 2020, my learned predecessor granted leave for the applicant to commence this application for judicial review.

[8] In the judicial review application, the applicant is seeking for that part of the decision of the 1st respondent, the Minister of Finance, in granting the blanket approval under s 49(1)(b) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 ("BAFIA") be stayed pending the disposal of this application for judicial review at the substantive stage.

[9] On an oral application made by counsel for the applicant, the learned Judge also granted a stay order ("the 1st Stay Order") in the following manner:

Pelaksanaan bahagian keputusan Responden Pertama bertarikh 6 Julai 2007 yang memberi kelulusan menyeluruh (blanket approval) kepada institusi kewangan perbankan untuk menjual dan melupuskan sebahagian akaun pinjaman tidak berbayar (NPL-NPL) (iaitu Bahagian Tersebut Keputusan Responden Pertama) digantung sehingga Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman atas merit dilupuskan.

[10] As aforesaid, it is to be noted that the applicant did not pray for a stay order in his application for leave for judicial review in Encl 1. It was not particularised in the Statement under O 53 r 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 (" ROC ") either.

[11] Aggrieved by the 1st Stay Order, the AGC filed the Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 14 October 2020 ("the Appeal").

[12] On 15 March 2023, the Court of Appeal, while affirming the Leave Order, unanimously set aside the 1st Stay Order. The minutes of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal are, inter alia, as follows:

Court: On the issue of the ex parte order, we agree with submissions of the learned SFC and counsels for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents that the High Court should not have granted the ex parte stay as it was not in accordance with the established principles. The ex parte stay was not prayed for in the leave application proper nor was it alluded through in the statements in the affidavit in support of the leave application. Further, parties affected by the ex parte order were not before the High Court and they were not heard.

Hence, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of stay is set asi