JUDGMENT

Edwin Paramjothy Michael Muniandy JC:

A. Introduction

[1] This judgment concerns the plaintiffs' Notice of Application dated 17 June 2025, filed via encl 139. By that application, the plaintiffs sought an order to stay the present proceedings pending the final determination of their appeal to the Court of Appeal ("the Appeal"). The Appeal arises from the decision of this Court on 11 June 2025, whereby the plaintiffs' application for a protective order regarding their alleged confidential information and trade secrets ("encl 83") was dismissed with costs.

[2] Having considered the affidavits filed, as well as the written and oral submissions of learned counsel on both sides, I dismissed encl 139 on 18 September 2025 with costs. I now state my reasons for doing so.

B. Factual Background

[3] On 23 February 2024, the plaintiffs initiated this action, asserting claims that include misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of confidence, breach of contract, and conspiracy to injure. At the heart of the dispute lies the protection of what the plaintiffs characterise as their trade secrets and confidential information.

[4] In tandem with the substantive suit, the plaintiffs pursued several interlocutory applications. Of particular significance is encl 83, an amended application seeking a protective order to restrain the defendants from disclosing or deploying the alleged trade secrets and confidential information for purposes extraneous to the litigation.

[5] As stated earlier, this Court , through Adlin Abdul Majid J, dismissed encl 83 on 11 June 2025. On that same date, directions were given by the trial judge for the filing of documents in connection with the plaintiffs' interlocutory injunction application in encl 82 and for the trial of the present action. The trial dates were fixed for November 2025.

[6] Dissatisfied with the decision of Adlin Abdul Majid J in encl 83, the plaintiffs lodged a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 12 June 2025. Shortly thereafter, on 17 June 2025, they filed the present application in encl 139, seeking to stay all proceedings in this Court pending the resolution of the said appeal.

C. The Law On Stay Of Proceedings

[7] The jurisdiction to grant a stay of proceedings is discretionary in nature. It finds expression in several sources: Order 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012"), Orders 13 and 14 of the Rules of the of Appeal 1994 ("RCOA 1994"), and s 73 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA 1964"). Read together, these provisions preserve the Court 's inherent power to intervene in the conduct of proceedings where justice so demands.

[8] Where a stay is sought pending appeal, the touchstone is whether the appeal, if ultimately successful, would be rendered nugatory in the absence of such relief. This principle was articulated in Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd; [2004] 1 MLJ 257; [2003] 4 CLJ 1; [2003] 5 AMR 758, where the Court held that "special circumstances" must be established as a condition precedent to the grant of a stay.

[9] It bears emphasis that such circumstances must not be of the ordinary run; they must be truly exceptional, and must demonstrate with clarity that a stay is necessary to preserve the substratum of the litigation or to avert irreparable harm. As observed in OAG Engineering Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Ng Hoe Keong & Ors (Encl 114), the inquiry is directed not to the merits of the impugned decision but to whether the justice of the case requires a stay in the natural progression of the suit. The burden, which is a heavy one, rests squarely on the applicant.

[10] It is axiomatic that the threshold for obtaining such relief is stringent. A stay of proceedings is, by its very nature, an extraordinary remedy. It is not to be granted as a matter of course, but only where the demands of justice leave the Court with no other alternative.

[11] In International Construction & Civil Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Jittra Sdn Bhd & Ors, the Cour