JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] The applicant is a judgment creditor, having secured a judgment against the respondent in 2023, thereby rendering the defendant a judgment debtor. To enforce the said judgment, the judgment creditor initiated garnishee proceedings against the judgment debtor's accounts in 18 banks, pursuant to O 49 of the Rules of 2012. However, these efforts proved futile when the High Court at Shah Alam, in Suit BA-37G-104-07/2024 ("Suit 104"), declined to grant the garnishee order absolute sought by the plaintiff.

[2] The present dispute specifically concerns the judgment creditor and the 6th garnishee. Having successfully resisted the judgment creditor's application for a garnishee order absolute before the Shah Alam High Court in Suit 104, the 6th garnishee now faces a fresh challenge - an application before this Court by the judgment creditor in Encl 77, seeking a stay of the decision in Suit 104, pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Issues

[3] At the heart of the matter lies the question of whether this Court has the power to stay the Shah Alam High Court 's refusal in Suit 104 to grant the garnishee order absolute. Put differently, the issue is whether a stay can be granted pursuant to a dismissal order.

[4] This overarching issue gives rise to another interrelated question, provided the answer to the predominant issue is in the affirmative: whether there exist special circumstances to warrant the granting of a stay.

The Respective Contentions

[5] The judgment creditor highlighted the fact that his application has not been opposed by the judgment debtor.

[6] The judgment creditor further pointed out that "from the day the garnishee order nisi was served upon the 6th garnishee on 19 August 2024, it was only the 6th garnishee who was resisting the garnishee proceedings with the filing of affidavits and submission, when it should have been the JD". According to the judgment creditor, by not resisting the garnishee proceedings, "the JD is sending his clear message to this... Court to allow his money in his CIMB Preferred Current Account... to be garnished".

[7] In support of his contention that a stay can be granted for a dismissal order, the judgment creditor relied on cases such as Prince Court Medical Centre Sdn Bhd v. Germguard Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd; [2016] 4 MLJ 1, Abdul Jalil Abdul Hamid & Ors v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja, Malaysia & Ors; [2004] 4 MLJ 582; [2003] 8 CLJ 8 and Mohd Afrizan Husain v. Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia; [2022] 2 AMR 607.

[8] It was the judgment creditor's contention that he is "entitled to a stay of the dismissal of the garnishee order nisi (Enclosure 14), which is equivalent to a stay of a setting aside of the garnishee order nisi".

[9] The judgment creditor also averred that "the 6th garnishee, merely as a financial intermediary, does not have any right to object".

[10] On the requirement to establish special circumstances, the judgment creditor argued as follows:

1. Terdapat keadaan khas untuk menangguhkan Perintah Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.

2. Tanpa Penangguhan, pemiutang penghakiman akan mengalami kerugian yang tidak dapat dipulihkan kerana penghutang penghakiman adalah warganegara Amerika tanpa status pemastautin tetap di Malaysia, dan pemegang akaun bersama juga merupakan warga asing yang turut tidak mempunyai status pemastautin tetap di Malaysia.

3. Wujud risiko sebenar pelesapan dan/atau pelesapan lanjut dana dalam Akaun CIMB Preferred No 8006958930 yang akan menyebabkan prejudis yang serius terhadap pemiutang penghakiman.

4. Perintah Penangguhan diperlukan untuk mengekalkan status quo, dan sekiranya rayuan pemiutang penghakiman dibenarkan, penghutang penghakiman pada ketika itu akan mengosongkan jumlah dana yang tidak diketahui yang telah dibekukan sejak 19 Ogos 2024 dalam Akaun CIMB Preferred No 8006958930, menjadikan rayuan pemiutang penghakiman sia-sia dan/atau akademik.

5. penghutang penghakiman dan 6th garnishee tidak akan mengalami sebar