SURIA FIRST HOLDINGS SDN BHD v 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) ARA HILL JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY

Case Significance

Reaffirms that the grant of leave for judicial review does not operate as a stay under Order 53 rule 3(5), that the merits of the challenge are irrelevant to a stay, and that a purely monetary tribunal award for a modest sum will not be stayed absent special circumstances rendering the review nugatory.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for an interim stay of a Strata Management Tribunal award pending the hearing of a substantive judicial review, and it reaffirms that the merits of the underlying challenge are irrelevant to a stay. The second respondent, a joint management body, had claimed RM69,810.96 from the applicant for outstanding maintenance charges and contributions to the sinking fund in respect of the applicant's unit in a condominium. The Strata Management Tribunal issued an award ordering the applicant to pay that sum within 30 days and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim. The applicant filed judicial review to quash the award, alleging illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and a breach of proportionality — contending, among other things, that the charges had been calculated on floor area rather than share units, making the award ultra vires the Strata Management Act 2013 — and, having obtained leave, applied for an interim stay of the award pending the substantive hearing. The court noted that under Order 53 rule 3(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 the grant of leave does not operate as a stay, and that a stay is a matter of discretion turning on whether special circumstances are shown. Applying authorities including Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd, it held that the merits of the applicant's case are not a relevant consideration in a stay application; the primary question is whether special circumstances exist, the most common being that the substantive proceeding would be rendered nugatory. Here the award was only a monetary judgment for a not insubstantial but modest sum, so the judicial review would not be rendered nugatory, and the successful second respondent ought not to be deprived of the fruits of its litigation merely because a challenge had been filed. Finding no special circumstances, the court dismissed the stay application and ordered the applicant to pay costs of RM3,000 to the second respondent.