SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD v 1. ) BAMBOO QUEST SDN BHD 2. ) UNITED MALAYAN LAND BHD
Catchwords
FINAL DETERMINATION [43] For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish special circumstances within the meaning of Section 73 CJA. The circumstances raised by the Defendants relate to the alleged merits of their appeal and not to enforcement of the judgment. This is a purely monetary judgment, and it is settled law that stay of execution is rarely granted in respect of monetary judgments. The Defendants have failed to demonstrate that their appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted. The Plaintiff will suffer clear and substantial prejudice if stay is granted, whereas the Defendants will suffer no irreparable harm as any alleged loss is capable of restitution should their appeal succeed. The balance of convenience and justice lies in favour of the Plaintiff, who has already been deprived of the fruits of its judgment for an extended period while the Defendants persist in delay and non-compliance. The outcome of Appeal 433 has no bearing on the present stay applications. The Defendants' reliance on that decision is legally irrelevant and inconsistent with their own position before the Court of Appeal, amounting to approbation and reprobation. The Defendants' pattern of filing multiple stay applications demonstrates a strategy of delay and disentitles them to equitable relief. [44] In the exercise of this Court's discretion, it would be inequitable and contrary to settled law to permit the Defendants to suspend enforcement of a final monetary judgment without showing genuine risk of irretrievable loss. The law does not require this Court to withhold the fruits of a valid monetary judgment out of apprehension that an appellate court's reasoning elsewhere might bear upon the parties' dispute. [45] For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' stay of execution applications: • Enclosure 198 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-104-03/2023; and • Enclosure 155 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-562-10/2023 are hereby DISMISSED with costs. [46] Costs of RM10,000.00 is to be paid by the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant jointly and severally to the Plaintiff, subject to allocator.
Practice Areas
FINAL DETERMINATION 43 For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish special circumstances within the meaning of Section 73 CJA. The circumstances raised by the Defendants relate to the alleged merits of their appeal and not to enforcement of the judgment. This is a purely monetary judgment, and it is settled law that stay of execution is rarely granted in respect of monetary judgments. The Defendants have failed to demonstrate that their appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted. The Plaintiff will suffer clear and substantial prejudice if stay is granted, whereas the Defendants will suffer no irreparable harm as any alleged loss is capable of restitution should their appeal succeed. The balance of convenience and justice lies in favour of the Plaintiff, who has already been deprived of the fruits of its judgment for an extended period while the Defendants persist in delay and non-compliance. The outcome of Appeal 433 has no bearing on the present stay applications. The Defendants' reliance on that decision is legally irrelevant and inconsistent with their own position before the Court of Appeal, amounting to approbation and reprobation. The Defendants' pattern of filing multiple stay applications demonstrates a strategy of delay and disentitles them to equitable relief. 44 In the exercise of this Court's discretion, it would be inequitable and contrary to settled law to permit the Defendants to suspend enforcement of a final monetary judgment without showing genuine risk of irretrievable loss. The law does not require this Court to withhold the fruits of a valid monetary judgment out of apprehension that an appellate court's reasoning elsewhere might bear upon the parties' dispute. 45 For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' stay of execution applications: • Enclosure 198 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-104-03/2023; and • Enclosure 155 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-562-10/2023 are hereby DISMISSED with costs. 46 Costs of RM10,000.00 is to be paid by the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant jointly and severally to the Plaintiff, subject to allocator.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD v 1. ) BAMBOO QUEST SDN BHD 2. ) UNITED MALAYAN LAND BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 14, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-104-03-2023). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.
Key issues: [46] Costs of RM10,000.00 is to be paid by the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant jointly and severally to the Plaintiff, subject to allocator..
What was the outcome of SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD v 1. ) BAMBOO QUEST SDN BHD 2. ) UNITED MALAYAN LAND BHD?
SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD v 1. ) BAMBOO QUEST SDN BHD 2. ) UNITED MALAYAN LAND BHD is a High Court decision dated October 14, 2025. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.