Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1897
HIGH COURT MALAYA GEORGETOWN
SUZANA MUHAMAD SAID, JC
W&L HARDWARE TRADING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA – Respondent
[Originating Summon No: PA-24NCvC-330-03/2025]
A party seeking a stay of execution must prove special circumstances relating to the enforcement of the judgment. Where the subject matter is commercial property and any loss is compensable via monetary damages, the court will typically refuse a stay, as the appeal will not be rendered nugatory.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Stay of execution - Principles governing stay pending appeal - The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of special circumstances to justify a stay of execution - The special circumstances must go to the enforcement of the judgment and not the validity or correctness of the judgment - Mere filing of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution. (Paras 30, 31, 33-35)
(B) Stay of Execution - Special circumstances - Nugatoriness of appeal - If a defendant shows that refusing a stay would render a successful appeal nugatory, this constitutes a special circumstance - A pivotal consideration is whether damages based on commercial value can adequately compensate a party if the appeal succeeds - Property lacking sentimental value is generally compensable in damages. (Paras 32, 36-39)
Facts of the case:
The defendant applied for a stay of execution of a court order regarding the termination of co-proprietorship and the partition of land, pending both an appeal and the determination of separate proceedings aimed at setting aside a prior vesting order. The defendant argued that the vesting order was a foundational basis for the current judgment, that execution would cause irreversible consequences, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving special circumstances. The court determined that the subject property, being commercial in nature, carried no sentimental value and that any potential loss resulting from the execution of the order was compensable through damages should the appeal succeed.
Issues: Whether the defendant established the required “special circumstances” to warrant a stay of execution, and whether the potential for an appeal to be rendered nugatory justified staying the partition and sale of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: An application for a stay of execution requires proof of special circumstances, which must relate to the practical enforcement of the judgment rather than the merits of the appeal. Since the subject matter of the dispute was commercial land without sentimental value, any losses suffered by the defendant upon successful appeal would be adequately remediable through monetary damages, failing to satisfy the threshold for a stay.
Result: Application for stay of execution dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the factual basis of the suit regarding the land title and the disputed co-proprietorship. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. defendant asserts the existence of special circumstances to warrant a stay of execution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. plaintiff argues that legal requirements for stay were not met and the defendant's act is an abuse of process. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. court reiterates the test for stay, noting that commercial losses are compensable and not grounds for stay. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Defendant applies for a stay of execution of an Order granted on 20 November 2025 (Order) pending appeal to the Court of Appeal and until the determination of the Originating Summons No WA-24NCVC-4482-09/2025 (Suit 4482) filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court to set aside a High Court Order dated 4 July 2017 in the Originating Summons No WA-24NCvC-897-06/2017 (Suit 897). The Order was given pursuant to the Originating Summons filed by the plaintiff to terminate the co¬proprietorship and partition of a piece of land.
[2] This Court dismissed the defendant's stay application for the following reasons.
Brief Facts
[3] The Plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant in respect of a parcel of land held under GRN 102, Lot 6682 (formerly known as Lot 630), Mukim 11, Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah, Pulau Pinang (Land).
[4] It is not disputed that the Land forms part of assets placed under the administration of the defendant, namely the Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi (KPI), following bankruptcy proceedings involving Haji PP. Shaukat Ali P. Ghani (Deceased) and subsequent bankruptcy proceedings involving Lim Kooi Fatt.
[5] On 5 May 2016, the Court of Appeal ordered that the Land be placed under the administration of the defendant (COA Order) and that all claims or interests in the Land be determined by the defendant. Thus, pursuant to the COA Order, the defendant conducted an inquiry to ascertain the respective interests in the Land. Following the inquiry, the defendant determined that Portion 1 of the Land belongs to the plaintiff.
[6] Subsequently, on 4 July 2017, a Vesting Order was obtained from the Kuala Lumpur High Court, vesting 92039 of 112439 shares of the Land to the plaintiff.
[7] However, despite the Vesting Order, disputes over ownership and interests in the Land continued involving multiple parties over the years.
[8] The Plaintiff then commenced the present proceedings seeking termination of the co-proprietorship and partition of the Land.
[9] On 20 November 2025, Justice Wendy granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff. For convenience, the order consists of:
'1. Pemilikan bersama ('co-proprietorship') bagi suatu tanah yang dikenali sebagai GRN 102, Lot 6682 (No. Lot Sebelumnya: 630) Mukim 11, Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Tanah tersebut"), Pulau Pinang, yang dimiliki bersama diantara plaintif sebanyak 92039/112439 dan defendan sebanyak 81600/449756 bahagian dalam Tanah tersebut, dibatalkan;
2. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Seberang Perai Tengah dan/atau Pentadbir Tanah Seberang Perai Tengah dan/atau mana-mana pihak yang sepatutnya, pembahagian/memecah milik ('partition') Tanah tersebut kepada dua (2) bahagian ditanda sebagai 'Plot A' dan 'Plot B' sepertimana ditanda di dalam Pelan yang dieksibitkan sebagai exh A di sini, dimana pecah milik yang dicadangkan adalah mengikut syer-syer pemilik bersama masing-masing, yang mana adalah seperti berikut:
(a) Plot A - 92039/112439; dan
(b) Plot B - 81600/449756.
3. Pembahagian tanah berdasarkan bahagian pemilikan masing- masing dan mengikut pelan ukuran rasmi Plaintif yang dicadangkan melalui Laporan Penilaian ataupun mengarahkan pihak-pihak memperolehi Laporan Penilaian/Pelan Ukuran Bersama;
4. Bahawa sesiapa yang memiliki dokumen hak milik keluaran asal Tanah tersebut hendaklah menyerahkan dokumen hak mil
