1. ) BLJ Commercials Pte Ltd v 1. ) Suntruck Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-632-09/2024)

BLJ COMMERCIALS PTE LTD [Business Registration No.: 201700079R]

CHEN BOON LEONG [NRIC No.: 670512016165] … PLAINTIFFS

SUNTRUCK SDN BHD [Business Registration No.: 1073367-W]

CHEN BOON KOH [NRIC No.: 620809015467]

CHEN BOON KENG [NRIC No.: 650903016375] …DEFENDANTS

This is the Defendants’ application for a stay of execution pending the hearing and disposal of his appeal against the summary judgment of this Court dated 20.11.2024. By that judgment, this Court entered summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs for the outstanding sum of GBP 357,250.00 which the Defendants had expressly acknowledged in 2 promissory notes. The judgment further provided that in the event the Defendants fail to satisfy the indebtedness within 30 days from the judgment, the Plaintiffs are entitled to compel the 2nd and 3rd Defendants by an injunction to proceed with the sale of their respective properties which they had pledged as security for the said debts and to apply the proceeds towards payment of the judgment debts.

After hearing submissions from counsel, I dismissed the Defendants’ application for a stay of execution with costs.

The principle governing a stay of execution pending appeal are trite. A stay is not granted as a matter of course. The Defendants bear the burden of establishing that there are special circumstances such that, unless a stay is granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory or the Defendants would suffer irreparable damages.

Having considered the application and the materials placed before this Court, I find no basis for the exercise of the Court’s discretion in favour of a stay. The summary judgment was premised on 2 unequivocal acknowledgment by way of promissory notes signed by the Defendants, confirming both the existence and quantum of debts. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants had further undertaken to provide security by way of a pledge of their respective properties in the event that the 1st Defendant fails to pay the debts. Indeed the judgment stipulates that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are obliged to sell their respective properties if the 1st Defendant fails to payment the judgment debts within 30 days from the judgment.

To my mind, the judgment is a monetary judgment and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated by the Defendants to justify a stay of execution of the same. The judgment is for payment of a debt and any payment made pursuant to the execution of judgment is capable of restitution in the event the appeal succeeds.

Further, the properties will only be subjected to sale in the event of the Defendants’ default on payment. This is a matter wholly within the Defendants’ control. There is therefore no risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory.

For the reasons above, the application for a stay of execution is dismissed with costs. Dated the 25th day of August 2025 ONG CHEE KWAN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION NCC2 & ADMIRALTY) HIGH COURT OF KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA Counsel for Plaintiffs: Mr. John Rolan Fernandez together with Ms. Ashrvini Nair (Messrs. Christopher & Lee Ong) Counsel for Defendants: Ms. Fong Lee Wee (Messrs. Ng Kian Nam & Partners)