12 Feb 2026
Court granted a conditional stay of execution on the ground that special circumstances existed to prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory; the appropriate condition was deposit of RM650,000 into an interest-bearing firm client account within 30 days to balance the parties' competing rights.
29 Jan 2026
Although the requirements for a Mareva injunction were not satisfied, the court properly exercised its discretion to maintain preservation of RM3.4 million because the 1st Defendant voluntarily secured the funds, the amount was limited to the sum in dispute, the preservation was not coercive Mareva relief and it was proportionate to protect the integrity of any future judgment.
14 May 2024
The court granted a conditional stay rather than an unconditional stay because the defendants failed to show special circumstances for an absolute stay; a conditional stay securing the principal judgment sum with stakeholders appropriately balances the parties’ interests and prevents prejudice to the plaintiff while preserving defendants' right to appeal. The defendants must deposit RM31,776,003.47 with the 1st defendant's solicitors as stakeholders within 14 days.
14 May 2024
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.
7 Sept 2023
No unconditional stay granted because no special circumstances were shown; court granted a conditional stay on terms that the judgment sum plus interest and costs be paid to the respondents' solicitors as stakeholders within 14 days, failing which there shall be no stay; costs of RM3,000 to be costs in the cause.
13 Apr 2022
The court exercised its discretion to grant a conditional stay to protect both the appellants' right to appeal and the judgment creditors' entitlement to the fruits of litigation: because the debtors had the means and had not been candid about finances, the court required immediate payment of RM2,500,000 (about 25% of the judgment) and deposit of the balance into a jointly-operated interest-bearing account to secure the judgment; failure to meet conditions causes automatic lapse of the stay.
30 Dec 2019
The court held that the deposit of the seven strata titles by Solaris Estates in the winding-up petition did not prevent the plaintiff from proceeding against the defendant on the Letter of Guarantee; the security was overtaken by the adjudication of bankruptcy of the registered owner and is subject to the Director General of Insolvency under the Insolvency Act 1967, and therefore cannot be equated to a charge that discharges the guarantor's liability. Accordingly the defendant's preliminary relief was refused, the trial was ordered to proceed without delay and the specific answers to the pos…
28 Nov 2019
The court found special circumstances warranting a stay because the respondents' financial positions raised serious doubts about their ability to repay the judgment sums if the appellants' appeal succeeded; PDZ Holdings demonstrated capacity and offered adequate security (cash instalments and a caveat over unencumbered property) such that a conditional stay would protect respondents and prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory.
30 Oct 2019
The appeal was dismissed because it was academic in light of an existing Bankruptcy Order, the JD's offer of three properties was unsubstantiated and insufficient to prevent bankruptcy, and the SAR correctly exercised discretion in dismissing repetitive, unmeritorious applications amounting to abuse of process.