Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1904
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
PETROLEUM SARAWAK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) (ENCLS 1 4 17 18 20 21 23 24.... – Respondent
[No: KCH-24NCC-4-10/2024]
A stay of proceedings in one action pending another requires compelling justification; courts prioritize expeditious adjudication to prevent delays and ensure justice.
Headnote:(A) Court of Judicature Act 1964 - Sections 43 and 73 - Application for stay of proceedings - The defendant sought a stay of proceedings in an Originating Summons pending the outcome of related KL Proceedings - The court addressed the inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings and the issue of special circumstances. (Paras 8-9, 17-19, 26-29)
(B) Legal principles - A stay of proceedings may only be granted in exceptional circumstances to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process, requiring strong justification from the applicant. (Paras 26-28)
Facts of the case:
The defendant filed an application for a stay of proceedings in the Kuching OS, related to an interpleader dispute in the KL Proceedings involving multiple parties and complex issues regarding gas distribution rights in Sarawak, stressing overlapping matters. (Paras 10-11, 15-19)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the Kuching OS must proceed independently, even as the KL Proceedings continued, and that there were no compelling reasons to delay or stay the Kuching OS. (Paras 53-56)
Issues: Whether the proceedings in the Kuching OS should be stayed pending the KL Proceedings, which raises issues of overlapping parties and legal questions about the distribution of gas. (Paras 36, 39, 49)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for expeditious adjudication and determined that no compelling special circumstances justified staying the Kuching OS, given its advanced stage and distinct legal questions. (Paras 54-56)
Result: Defendant's application for a stay dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are based on the assertion that the lower court erred in its decision to dismiss the application for a stay of proceedings. The appellant contends that the court failed to recognize the potential for prejudice or injustice that could arise if the proceedings were not stayed pending the outcome of the KL proceedings (!) . Furthermore, it is argued that the court did not sufficiently consider the possibility of conflicting judgments or the need to prevent unnecessary duplication of efforts, which are relevant factors in deciding whether to grant a stay (!) . The appellant also emphasizes that the court's emphasis on the importance of expeditious adjudication should not override the principles of fairness and justice, especially when there are significant issues still pending in the KL proceedings that could impact the Kuching case (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. clarification of claims and nature of disputes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 18) |
| 3. legal standards and principles on granting stays. (Para 14 , 19 , 21) |
| 4. arguments against the stay application. (Para 22 , 25 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. authority of the high court and alternative arguments. (Para 30 , 34) |
| 6. court's determination of stay application. (Para 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 54) |
| 7. final decision and order of the court. (Para 56) |
[Enclosure 38 - Stay Of Proceeding]
[1] the defendant, PETRONAS, is dissatisfied with my decision made on 28th April 2025 dismissing its Notice of Application (encl 38) for a stay of the proceeding of this Originating Summons ("Kuching OS") pending the disposal of the action filed by Shell MDS (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Shell MDS) against PETROS and PETRONAS in the KL High Court (KL Proceedings).
[2] PETRONAS has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the dismissal of the said encl 38.
[3] Below are the full grounds for my decision.
[4] Enclosure 38 is an application by the defendant [PETRONAS] seeking a stay of proceedings to prevent this Court from proceeding with the hearing of the Kuching OS filed by the plaintiff [PETROS] against the defendant pending the full and final disposal of the KL Proceedings.
[5] The KL Proceedings is an interpleader application filed by Shell MDS (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [Shell] against PETROS and PETRONAS. The KL High Court, at the time of the hearing of encl 38 has not proceeded with the hearing of the interpleader action.
[6] The grounds in support of the Defendant's application (encl 38) are as set out in the affidavit in support of ANUAR BIN ISMAIL, the Head, Integrated Hydrocarbon Management, Malaysia Petroleum Management of the defendant [Enclosure 40]. The Defendant also filed the Notice of Intention to use the affidavits duly filed under encls 17, 20, 23, and 26.
[7] The plaintiff [PETROS] is opposing the defendant's application for a stay. In opposing the said application, the plaintiff filed their Notice of Intention to use the affidavits, duly filed in Court as encls 4, 18, 21, 24, and 42 respectively.
[8] Section 43 and s 73 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA), states that the High Court may stay a proceeding pending appeal.
" Section 43 . Applications
Wherever application may be made either to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal, it shall be made in the first instance to the High Court. "
Section 73 CJA
An appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the decision appealed from unless the Court below or the Court of Appeal so orders and no intermediate act or proceeding shall be invalidated except so far as the Court of Appeal may direct. "
[9] In Ambank (M) Berhad v. Malaysian Coal & Minerals Corporation Sdn Bhd (Encls 1 14 32 & 42) ; [2016] 11 MLJ 590 ; [2016] 1 AMCR 838 , it was held:
"[7] As may be seen from the authorities discussed in Vijayalakshmi Devi v. Dr Mahadevan, s 243(1) has nothing whatsoever to do with staying the effects of a winding up order pending an appeal challenging the making of that order. The latter is governed by s 73 of the Courts of Act 1964. There is also inherent jurisdiction in a High Court to stay the effects of its orders pending appeal. See, Re Wickham [1887] 35 Ch D 272; Fitzholmes v. Waryam AIR [1923] Lahore 514. Indeed, it is a logical step in the appellate process that if a party has a right of appeal conferred upon it then it has the right to seek and obtain a stay of the order appealed against: The remarks of the Supreme Court in Sri Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v. MBF Finance Bhd certainly lend support for that view. Further, in Chong Wooi Leong & Ors v. Lebbey Sdn Bhd [1998] 1 MLRA 109; [1998] 2 MLJ 661; [1998] 2 CLJ 509; [1998] 2 AMR 1750, Abu Mansor JCA (later FCJ) considered it to be "trite law that a Court which has given judgment certainly has the power to order stay. "
[8] Now, it is clea
