Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conditional stay

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

TETUAN WOON WEE YUEN & PARTNERS TEGUH ASIAMAS SDN. BHD.

Citation

J-01(IM)(NCvC)-44-01/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

J-01(IM)(NCvC)-44-01/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The application for an interim stay was dismissed because the conditional stay previously granted, implemented via solicitors acting as stakeholders, furnishes adequate protection against dissipation and renders the Appellant's concerns about nugatory appeals and foreign enforcement immaterial; non-compliance with the conditional stay's terms disentitles the Appellant to further relief absent exceptional circumstances, which were not shown.
10 Nov 2025

TRESENERGY SDN BHD 1. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN YA'AKOB 2. ) MTC ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-603-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-603-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to discharge the burden to show special circumstances warranting a stay: impecuniosity and fear of bankruptcy do not qualify; no evidence the national interest would be affected; defendants admitted inability to satisfy judgment so cannot show risk of being unable to be reinstated if appeal succeeds; proposed conditional stay cannot be implemented absent fresh sanction/clear authority from Official Receiver/Liquidator. Enclosure 80 therefore dismissed.
30 Sept 2025

USAHA BAHAGIA TIMBER SDN. BHD. TUAN KHAIRUL ANNUAR BIN TUAN YUSUF

Citation

BA-22NCvC-239-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-239-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Plaintiff's fragile finances and the realistic risk that judgment funds and transferred shares would be dissipated to third parties, combined with the substantial judgment sum making the Defendant's bankruptcy likely and the irreparable loss to the Defendant's earning capacity, the court found special circumstances existed to justify a conditional stay of execution pending appeal, subject to security (deposit of half the judgment sum and deposit of executed share transfer forms).
16 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found D2 and D3 guilty of contempt because they wilfully and deliberately failed to comply with the Judgment and the Conditional Stay Order; leave to commence committal was properly granted after a prima facie showing; evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly Enclosures 165 and 169 were allowed, Enclosures 174 and 176 dismissed, and sentences were imposed as recorded.
16 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that D2 and D3 had failed to comply with the Order and the Conditional Stay Order, that the leave for committal was properly granted on a prima facie case, and that the breach was wilful and amounted to contempt beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly D2 and D3 were found guilty of contempt and committal orders and sentences were lawful and appropriate under Article 126, s13 Courts of Judicature Act and Orders 45/52 ROC.
16 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that D2 and D3 wilfully failed to comply with the Order and the CSO, constituting contempt of court; the applicants established a prima facie case and proof beyond reasonable doubt of contempt was made; accordingly leave was correctly granted, Enclosures 165 and 169 were allowed, Enclosures 174 and 176 were dismissed, and D3 (as sole proprietor and advocate) and D2 were found guilty and sentenced as recorded.
15 May 2025

NZ BINA SDN BHD 1. ) REAPLITE INDUSTRY SDN BHD 2. ) OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

JA-22NCvC-275-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-275-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court granted a partial conditional stay of execution pending disposal of the Plaintiff's appeal because special circumstances were established: the ordered deposit of RM5,350,342.66 represented identifiable monies (balance payment of the performance bond paid by JKR) that D1 was entitled to under the judgment, the judgment sums were large and neither party was in a strong financial position; therefore a limited security held by the respondent's solicitors as stakeholder appropriately balanced interests. The merits of the underlying judgment were not considered in granting the stay.
14 May 2024

MAA CREDIT BERHAD 1. ) BEST BIRDNEST SDN BHD 2. ) GREENPOWER VALUE SDN BHD 3. ) DATUK LIM SUE BENG 4. ) LEE SIAH SIAN @ LEE HAY MN

Citation

WA-22NCC-183-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-183-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Unconditional stay refused because applicants failed to demonstrate special circumstances; conditional stay granted: defendants must jointly or severally deposit the principal judgment sum of RM31,776,003.47 with the 1st Defendant's solicitors as stakeholders within 14 days to preserve the plaintiff's right to enforcement while protecting appellants' right to appeal; no order as to costs.
1 Dec 2022

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD KWSL BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-52-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-52-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed MCB's application to set aside the adjudication decision (no breach of the second rule or breach not material/real possibility of different outcome); refused an absolute stay (no clear and unequivocal error and would injure KWSL's cashflow); exercised discretion under s16(1)(b) and (2) CIPAA to grant a conditional stay as an exception because prior High Court enforcement orders in favour of KWSL on three earlier adjudication decisions ensured KWSL's cashflow, and ordered MCB to deposit the adjudicated amount plus interest and costs into an interest-bearing solicitor's acco…
9 Sept 2022

AHMAD SUHAIRI BIN MAT ALI 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

PA-25-50-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-50-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Bank failed to demonstrate special circumstances in affidavit evidence and its fears were speculative; balancing prejudice and convenience, the court granted a conditional stay dividing the judgment sum into two equal parts—one half to be deposited into the Applicant's solicitors' interest-bearing clients' account and the other half plus awarded costs to be paid to the Applicant—thereby protecting the Bank's appeal without wholly depriving the Applicant of the fruits of litigation.