ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD

ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD

The Deputy Registrar’s decisions were not plainly wrong: ASM failed to show sufficient cause to set aside the Prohibitory Order or special circumstances to warrant a stay of execution; Econpile was entitled to enforce the valid Enforcement Order by Writ, Prohibitory Order and Order for Sale under the Rules of Court; the reserve auction price of RM250,000,000 was within judicial discretion and supported by the evidentiary valuation.

Citation
WA-36-5-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Execution Creditor/ Plaintiff: Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd; Execution Debtor/ Defendant: ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 May 2021
Case Number
WA-36-5-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Application for Execution to Enforce Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 (originating Summons WA 24 C 113 07/2019) / Appeals From Deputy Registrar to High Court Judge in Chambers Against Orders for Release/stay and Order for Sale
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Writ of Seizure and Sale, Prohibitory Order, Order for Sale, Stay of Execution, Valuation and Reserve Price, CIPAA Enforcement
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Construction Law Enforcement of Judgments Land Law Arbitration Law Writ of Seizure and Sale Prohibitory Order Order for Sale +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd

Execution Creditor/ Plaintiff

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd

Execution Debtor/ Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Execution to Enforce Adjudication Decision Under CIPAA 2012 (originating Summons WA 24 C 113 07/2019) / Appeals From Deputy Registrar to High Court Judge in Chambers Against Orders for Release/stay and Order for Sale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Prohibitory Order should be set aside under O.47 r.6(k)
  2. 2 Whether the execution creditor came to court with clean hands
  3. 3 Whether a stay of execution should be granted under O.47 r.1 or O.92 r.4 or inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Registrar’s decisions were not plainly wrong: ASM failed to show sufficient cause to set aside the Prohibitory Order or special circumstances to warrant a stay of execution; Econpile was entitled to enforce the valid Enforcement Order by Writ, Prohibitory Order and Order for Sale under the Rules of Court; the reserve auction price of RM250,000,000 was within judicial discretion and supported by the evidentiary valuation.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against Deputy Registrar decision dated 6.1.2021 dismissed with costs RM3,500.00 to be paid to Econpile, subject to allocatur
  • Appeal against Deputy Registrar decision dated 11.3.2021 dismissed with costs RM3,000.00 to be paid to Econpile, subject to allocatur