1. ) Golden Plus Holdings Berhad v 1. ) China Idea Development Limited (WA-22NCC-605-12/2020)

GOLDEN PLUS HOLDINGS BERHAD (Company No. 198401000555

GOLDEN PLUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (Company No. 199301030087

GOLDEN PLUS (BVI) PTE LTD (British Virgin Islands Company No. 126387)

SRI SERDANG SDN BHD (Company No. 197601000972 (26965-

D)) PARADIZE BAZAAR SDN BHD (Company No. 199501039962

VENICE HEIGHTS SDN. BHD. (Company No. 201401028069

HANPOPULAR SDN. BHD. (Company No. 201401028022

YANFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Company No. 432136)

YANFULL (SHANGHAI) CO. LTD. (Company No. 913100006072589999) ... PLAINTIFFS

CHINA IDEA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (Hong Kong Company No.: 1130588)

PACIFIC VICTOR INTERNATIONAL LTD (Hong Kong Company No.: 890052)

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF

TEH WEI KIAN (NRIC No.: 960531-43-5109)

TEH CHIAO EING, VALARIE (British Passport No.: GBR 548371510)

WU KWOK YING, MARIA (British Passport No.: GBR 548181044)

GOH SIN TIEN (NRIC No.: 500925-08-5335)

HUANG GUOQUAN (PRC Passport No.: EB7450450)

HUANG GUOYUAN (PRC Passport No.: E90189947)

YONG CHOOI LAN (NRIC No.: 690802-10-5332)

TAN SAY HAN (NRIC No.: 521023-08-5443)

SHIU FAI FONG (NRIC No.: 640422-12-5248)

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF (CHINA WILL) ... DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Enclosure 709: Application for Stay of Execution and/or Enforcement INTRODUCTION [1] Before the court is an application by the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicants”) for a stay of execution and/or enforcement of minutes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Judgment dated 13.3.2025 (“the Judgment”), including the quantum of costs fixed on 10.4.2025, pending disposal of the Applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Judgment. [2] The Judgment dated 13.3.2025 comprises three distinct categories of relief: a) Declaratory Orders (minutes 1 to 4): Declarations concerning the Management Agreements and the Loan Agreement. b) Injunction Orders (minutes 1 to 3): Injunctions restraining the winding up of the Plaintiffs, the appointment of liquidators and/or receivers and managers over the Plaintiffs, the reliance on alleged loans and/or advances to the Plaintiffs which are the subject matter of these proceedings, and the reliance on or recovery of any salaries, emoluments or monies allegedly owing by the Plaintiffs. c) Monetary Orders (minutes 4 to 11): Orders for payment of special, general and exemplary damages amounting to approximately RMB 221 million, together with orders for account and inquiry, tracing, interest and costs. [3] The Applicants seek to stay only the Monetary Orders pending the disposal of their appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Declaratory Orders and Injunction Orders are not the subject of this application and will remain in full force and effect regardless of the outcome herein. [4] Having carefully considered the affidavits, written submissions and oral arguments of both parties, and for the detailed reasons which I shall elaborate below, I am satisfied that special circumstances exist which warrant the granting of a stay of execution and/or enforcement of the Monetary Orders. I therefore allow the application subject to certain conditions designed to protect the interests of all parties. BACKGROUND FACTS [5] On 10.12.2020, the Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Defendants, alleging fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or injure the Plaintiffs, as well as breaches of fiduciary duties. [6] The 6th Defendant, Wu Kwok Ying, Maria (“Maria”), is the wife of the late Teh Soon Seng (“TSS”), who was involved with the Plaintiffs' companies. Maria is also the sole director and shareholder of the 2nd Defendant, Pacific Victor International Ltd (“PVI”). [7] The 5th Defendant, Teh Chiao Eing, Valarie (“Valarie”), is Maria's daughter with the late TSS. [8] Maria and her daughter, Valarie, were appointed by this court as Personal Representatives of TSS's estate under the United Kingdom Will and the Hong Kong Will, thereby assuming the roles of the 13th and 14th Defendants respectively. [9] Following a full trial, this court rendered judgment on 13.3.2025 in favour of the Plaintiffs. The court found, among other things, that a sum of RMB 166,102,428.00 had been fraudulently diverted from the Golden Plus group of companies. This finding forms the foundation of the special damages awarded. Together with general damages of approximately RMB 10,650,652.69 and exemplary damages of approximately RMB 44,188,270.17, the aggregate judgment sum amounts to RMB 220,941,350.86 (“the Judgment Sum”). [10] On 10.4.2025, this court fixed the quantum of costs as follows: a) RM 450,000 against the 2nd, 5th and 6th Defendants; b) RM 500,000 against the 13th and 14th Defendants; and c) RM 1,181,257.56 as disbursements, to be jointly and severally borne by all the Defendants, save for the 9th Defendant. [11] On 11.4.2025, the Applicants filed a Notice of Appeal against the Judgment. [12] On 15.4.2025, the Applicants filed the present application (Enclosure 709) for a stay of execution and/or enforcement of minutes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Judgment, including the quantum of costs fixed on 10.4.2025, pending disposal of their appeal to the Court of Appeal. RESPECTIVE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS The Applicants' Submissions [13] The Applicants contend that special circumstances exist warranting a stay of execution of the Monetary Orders for the reasons stated below. [14] First, the Judgment Sum is substantial - approximately RMB 221 million or RM 130 million - and enforcement would necessitate the liquidation of the Applicants' assets, causing irreparable harm. The Applicants particularly emphasise the Mayfair Property in Hong Kong, which has been Maria's principal residence for more than 15 years and which would likely be subjected to a forced sale in the event of immediate enforcement. [15] Second, the Applicants submit that the Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a stay as there exist sufficient identified assets with a cumulative value exceeding the Judgment Sum, which will remain available for enforcement in the event the appeal is ultimately unsuccessful. These assets include: a) The Mayfair Property (Flat B, 31st Floor, The Mayfair, 1 May Road, Mid-Levels, Hong Kong) valued at approximately RMB 107 million; b) The Masterpiece property (18 Hanoi Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong) owned by King Palace Corporation Ltd (of which the estate of TSS is the sole shareholder) valued at approximately RMB 24.5 million; c) Bank deposits and shares of TSS valued at approximately RMB 13.39 million; and d) Shares in the 1st Plaintiff held by Yang Jin valued at approximately HKD 105 million. [16] Third, the Applicants express legitimate concerns about the 1st Plaintiff's viability as a going concern and the attendant risk that any proceeds from enforcement would be dissipated across various jurisdictions, rendering recovery highly improbable should the appeal be allowed. [17] The Applicants further offer specific undertakings that: a) PVI will not deal with the Mayfair Property; b) Maria will not deal with the sole share of PVI; and c) Valarie Teh, as personal representative of TSS's Hong Kong estate, will not deal with the assets of TSS's Hong Kong estate. The Plaintiffs' Submissions [18] The Plaintiffs oppose the application for stay on several grounds, which I shall address in detail in my analysis below. [19] First, they submit that it is trite law that there ought not to be a stay of a monetary judgment regardless of the quantum unless the applicant demonstrates the existence of special circumstances, and that the Applicants have failed to establish any such special circumstances in this case. [20] Second, the Plaintiffs contend that the existence of assets valued in excess of the Judgment Sum does not constitute adequate security, and the Applicants' proposed undertakings are insufficient safeguards to preserve the Plaintiffs' rights pending appeal. [21] Third, the Plaintiffs argue that the Applicants have acted inequitably, pointing to Maria's alleged breach of the injunction orders and contempt of court in relation to her dealings with Villa 2 in China, as well as the Applicants' alleged attempts to strip TSS's estate of value in relation to the Macau Property. [22] The Plaintiffs suggest that any concerns the Applicants may have could be adequately addressed by a conditional stay, with the Judgment Sum being deposited with the Plaintiffs' Counsel's firm as stakeholders, to be maintained in an interest-bearing account pending determination of the appeals. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON STAY OF EXECUTION [23] The governing legal principle for stay of execution is well-established and consistently applied by Malaysian courts. As held in Serangoon Garden Estate Ltd v Ang Keng [1953] MLJ 116 and affirmed by the Federal Court and Court of Appeal in Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257 and Ming Ann Holdings Sdn Bhd v Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 MLJ 49 respectively: “It is a clear principle that the Court will not deprive a successful party of the fruits of his litigation until an appeal is determined, unless the unsuccessful party can show special circumstances to justify it.” [24] The starting principle is therefore clear: a successful litigant is ordinarily entitled to enforce a judgment immediately, and the court should not lightly interfere with this entitlement. The onus rests firmly upon the applicant seeking a stay to demonstrate the existence of special circumstances that justify departing from this general rule. [25] The concept of “special circumstances” is not rigidly defined and must be assessed in the context of each case's particular facts. Courts have recognised various factors that may constitute special circumstances, including but not limited to: the irreversible nature of enforcement, the availability of assets to satisfy the judgment should the appeal fail, the risk of rendering the appeal nugatory, and the balance of hardship between the parties. [26] In determining whether special circumstances exist, the court must also consider the balance of justice between the parties. This requires a careful weighing of the successful party's right to enjoy the fruits of their litigation against the potential prejudice to the appellant if enforcement proceeds before the appeal is determined, particularly where such prejudice cannot be adequately remedied by damages or other means if the appeal ultimately succeeds. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT Substantiality of the Judgment Sum and Irreparable Harm [27] The Applicants contend that the substantial nature of the Judgment Sum, coupled with the irreparable harm that would result from its enforcement, constitutes a special circumstance warranting a stay. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that the magnitude of a judgment sum, standing alone, cannot constitute a special circumstance, as this would mean that all substantial judgments would be automatically stayed pending appeal. [28] I acknowledge the force of the Plaintiffs' submission that the quantum of a judgment, in isolation, does not constitute a special circumstance. In Ming Ann Holdings, the Court of Appeal endorsed the principle established in Wu Shu Chen v Raja Zainal Abidin [1995] 3 MLJ 224 that “the fact that a large amount of money is involved do[es] not constitute special circumstances.” To hold otherwise would mean that all substantial judgments would be automatically stayed pending appeal. However, it is not merely the size of the Judgment Sum that I find compelling in this case, but rather the combination of its magnitude with the specific and demonstrable consequences that would flow from its immediate enforcement. [29] The Plaintiffs argue that the potential loss of assets through enforcement is an inherent risk in any substantial monetary judgment and does not, of itself, constitute a special circumstance. While this proposition holds true as a general matter, the court must look beyond generalities and examine the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature of the assets at risk, the consequences of their liquidation, and the potential for irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated in damages. [30] The Mayfair Property, situated at Flat B, 31st Floor, The Mayfair, 1 May Road, Mid-Levels, Hong Kong, has been Maria's principal residence since 2008 - a period exceeding 15 years. In the event of enforcement, this property would likely be subjected to a forced sale. In my view, the loss of a long-standing family residence carries significance beyond mere monetary value and cannot be adequately compensated by damages alone, even if the appeal ultimately succeeds and the Applicants become entitled to recover the judgment sum. This sentiment finds recognition in the Court of Appeal's decision in Salim bin Ismail & Ors v Lebby Sdn Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 1, where the court considered the irreversible consequences of enforcing a summary eviction order concerning a party's longstanding residence as a circumstance relevant to granting a stay. [31] Similarly, the shares in private companies, once liquidated or transferred to satisfy the judgment, cannot be easily restored to their original state or ownership. The corporate structure and shareholding arrangements, once disrupted by enforcement, may prove impossible to reinstate even if the appeal is ultimately successful. The status quo, once disturbed by forced liquidation, may be irrevocably altered. This consideration goes beyond the ordinary consequences of having to satisfy a substantial judgment debt and enters the realm of irreparable harm. [32] I find that these considerations distinguish the present case from Ming Ann Holdings, where the court noted that concerns about potential loss of business, customers, suppliers or goodwill could be adequately addressed by settling the judgment debt. In this case, the Applicants' concern is fundamentally different in character: enforcement would likely necessitate the forced sale of significant and irreplaceable assets, resulting in harm that cannot be undone even if the appeal succeeds. This irreversibility of consequence, rather than the size of the judgment standing alone, is what constitutes a special circumstance warranting judicial intervention in this particular case. Availability of Assets for Enforcement [33] The Applicants have identified assets with a cumulative value exceeding the Judgment Sum, which they contend will remain available for enforcement in the event the appeal is ultimately unsuccessful. These include the Mayfair Property, the Masterpiece property, bank deposits and shares of TSS, and shares in the 1st Plaintiff held by Yang Jin. [34] The Plaintiffs argue that this submission is misconceived, contending that the availability of assets for future enforcement does not, in itself, constitute a special circumstance justifying a stay. They further submit that if such reasoning were accepted, any judgment debtor possessing sufficient assets could obtain a stay simply by pointing to those assets as being available for future enforcement. [35] I acknowledge the force of the Plaintiffs' argument in this regard. The mere existence of assets with a value in excess of the Judgment Sum does not, standing alone, constitute a special circumstance sufficient to warrant a stay. To hold otherwise would effectively undermine the fundamental principle that successful litigants are entitled to the immediate fruits of their judgment. [36] However, while not determinative in itself, the availability of identifiable assets of sufficient value is a relevant factor that may properly be considered in the overall balance of justice, particularly when viewed in conjunction with the other circumstances of the case. The Plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the Judgment immediately and should not be deprived of the fruits of their litigation without compelling reason. That said, the fact that assets valued at approximately RMB 249 million have been specifically identified and will remain available for enforcement provides meaningful assurance that the Plaintiffs' ultimate interests will be protected if the appeal fails. [37] The protection of the Plaintiffs' interests is further reinforced by several important factors. First, the Injunction Orders granted at minutes 1, 2 and 3 of the Judgment remain in full force and effect, restraining the broader dissipation of assets. Second, the Applicants have offered specific undertakings not to deal with the Mayfair Property, PVI shares, and the assets of TSS's Hong Kong estate. Third, the assets of TSS's estate are subject to statutory constraints that prevent unauthorised distribution. These multiple layers of protection provide substantial safeguards for the Plaintiffs' interests pending the appeal. [38] The Plaintiffs argue that undertakings are inadequate because they may be difficult to enforce across multiple jurisdictions. While I acknowledge this concern, undertakings given to this court are not without legal effect. Breach of such undertakings would constitute contempt of court, attracting serious consequences including potential committal proceedings. Moreover, the undertakings operate in addition to, and not in substitution for, the continuing Injunction Orders, which provide general restraints against asset dissipation. Concerns Regarding Recoverability and Dissipation [39] The Applicants express concern that in the event the appeal succeeds, recovery of the Judgment Sum from the Plaintiffs may prove highly improbable due to the Plaintiffs' multinational corporate structure spanning multiple jurisdictions. Specifically, the Applicants point to the fact that while the 1st Plaintiff is a Malaysian company, the other Plaintiff entities are incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, and China. The Judgment makes the Applicants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs collectively, without apportioning liability to any specific Plaintiff. [40] The Plaintiffs respond that they have provided evidence of the Golden Plus group's financial health, pointing to current assets exceeding current liabilities by RM 254,675,000 and cash or cash equivalents of RM 1.3 billion. They submit that there is no basis for concern about their ability to refund the Judgment Sum should the appeal succeed. They further point out that a winding-up petition against Golden Plus Holdings Berhad was brought by a petitioner holding merely 6,000 shares and is founded on allegations of mismanagement rather than insolvency. [41] I have carefully considered these competing arguments. While the Plaintiffs have provided general information about the financial position of the Golden Plus group as a whole, they have not specifically addressed the Applicants' concerns about the 1st Plaintiff's viability as a going concern or the risk of dissipation across multiple jurisdictions. The distinction between the financial health of the corporate group in its entirety and that of the 1st Plaintiff specifically is a material one that cannot be glossed over. [42] In the absence of a specific and credible denial of the Applicants' averments regarding the 1st Plaintiff's going concern status, I am inclined to accept the Applicants' assertions as standing unrebutted, following the principles laid down in Nagaraja Ponusamy v Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia [2010] 4 CLJ 133 and See Chee How & Anor v Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia (Election Commission of Malaysia) [2016] 8 MLJ 384. [43] The risk of dissipation of enforcement proceeds across multiple jurisdictions is a legitimate concern that warrants consideration, particularly given the multinational corporate structure of the Plaintiffs and their operations spanning several jurisdictions. While this concern alone might not constitute a special circumstance sufficient to warrant a stay, it adds material weight to the Applicants' case when considered alongside the other factors that I have identified. Plaintiffs' Allegations of Inequitable Conduct [44] The Plaintiffs have contended that the Applicants have acted inequitably, pointing to Maria's dealings with Villa 2 in China and alleged attempts to strip TSS's estate of asset value in relation to the Macau Property. [45] The Plaintiffs allege that Maria proceeded with legal proceedings in China (the “China Proceedings”) despite being aware of the injunction orders granted by this court, which restrained the Defendants, including Maria, from distributing the assets of TSS's estate. They characterise this conduct as a breach of the injunction orders and contempt of court. [46] Having reviewed the evidence before me, I find that the Plaintiffs' characterisation of Maria's conduct takes the matter out of its proper context. Maria has consistently maintained that Villa 2 was given to her in its entirety by TSS during his lifetime and does not form part of TSS's estate. The China Proceedings were properly commenced to determine her rights and entitlements under Chinese law concerning property situated in China. The initiation of legal proceedings to determine ownership rights is not, in itself, equivalent to dealing with or distributing estate assets in contravention of an injunction. [47] The Injunction Orders restrained the distribution of assets of TSS's estate. They do not, and cannot reasonably be interpreted to, prohibit the commencement of legal proceedings to determine whether a particular asset belongs to the estate in the first place. Such an interpretation would impermissibly prevent parties from seeking proper legal recourse to establish their rights. [48] Furthermore, the evidence shows that Maria acted in accordance with the Chinese court's judgment by initiating procedures to register ownership. The registration process was commenced prior to the pronouncement of the Judgment in these proceedings and, according to the explanation provided by Maria's solicitors in China, could not be withdrawn once taxes had been paid. Following the pronouncement of the Judgment, Maria was properly advised that the liabilities of the estate must be satisfied prior to any distribution, and appropriate steps have been taken to address this concern. [49] Similarly, the allegations regarding attempts to strip TSS's estate of assets in relation to the Macau Property are not sufficiently substantiated to outweigh the other factors pointing towards the existence of special circumstances warranting a stay. The evidence before me does not establish deliberate wrongdoing of the character alleged by the Plaintiffs. [50] While I acknowledge the Plaintiffs' concerns regarding these matters, I do not find that they constitute conduct so egregious as to disentitle the Applicants from seeking equitable relief by way of a stay of execution. The allegations must be viewed in their proper context, and the Applicants' right to appeal should not be rendered nugatory by an overly strict interpretation of their conduct. Balance of Justice [51] Having considered all the individual factors discussed above, I must now weigh them collectively to determine where the overall balance of justice lies. [52] On the one hand, the Plaintiffs are successful litigants who have obtained judgment after a full trial. They are entitled to enforce that judgment and should not be lightly deprived of the fruits of their litigation. Any delay in enforcement represents an encroachment upon their rights as successful parties. [53] On the other hand, the Applicants face the prospect of irreparable harm if enforcement proceeds immediately. The forced sale of the Mayfair Property, which has been Maria's family residence for over 15 years, cannot be adequately remedied by monetary compensation. The liquidation of shares in private companies may prove impossible to reverse even if the appeal succeeds. These are not merely theoretical concerns but real and substantial risks inherent in the nature of the assets at stake. [54] The Applicants possess no liquid assets sufficient to satisfy the Judgment Sum of approximately RMB 221 million. Any attempt to satisfy the judgment would necessarily require the forced liquidation of the very assets they seek to protect. This distinguishes the present case from situations where an appellant could satisfy the judgment from liquid resources without suffering irreparable harm. [55] Against these considerations, I must weigh the extent to which the Plaintiffs' interests are adequately protected. Several factors provide such protection: First, assets valued at approximately RMB 249 million have been specifically identified and will remain available for enforcement if the appeal fails. Second, the continuing Injunction Orders prevent broader asset dissipation. Third, the Applicants have offered specific undertakings regarding key assets. Fourth, statutory constraints prevent unauthorised distribution of estate assets. Fifth, interest will continue to accrue on the Judgment Sum at 5% per annum, compensating the Plaintiffs for any delay. [56] The Applicants' concern regarding the potential difficulty of recovering the Judgment Sum from the Plaintiffs if the appeal succeeds is not without foundation. The multinational corporate structure of the Plaintiffs, with entities incorporated across multiple jurisdictions including the British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, and China, presents genuine practical difficulties for cross-border recovery. The absence of reciprocal enforcement arrangements with certain of these jurisdictions compounds these difficulties. [57] While the Plaintiffs submit that the Golden Plus group is financially sound, they have not specifically addressed concerns about the 1st Plaintiff's viability as a going concern. In the absence of specific and credible evidence to the contrary, the Applicants' concerns in this regard must be given weight. [58] The Plaintiffs contend that the Applicants have not demonstrated how they would be prejudiced by a conditional stay requiring deposit of the Judgment Sum into a stakeholder account. However, this submission does not adequately address the Applicants' concern. As I have found earlier in these grounds, none of the Applicants possess sufficient liquid assets to satisfy the Judgment Sum. Any payment into a stakeholder account would require the very forced liquidation of assets that the Applicants seek to avoid. The stakeholder proposal, while addressing concerns about recoverability, does not address the fundamental concern regarding irreparable harm from asset liquidation. [59] Furthermore, the Injunction Orders (minutes 1 to 3 of the Judgment), which will remain in force regardless of the outcome of this application, provide significant and meaningful protection to the Plaintiffs by preventing the dissipation of assets more broadly. The Applicants have also offered specific undertakings not to deal with certain key identified assets pending the appeal, which provides additional concrete assurance beyond the general protection afforded by the continuing injunctions. [60] Taking all these factors into careful account and weighing them against each other, I find that the balance of justice weighs in favour of granting a stay of execution. The potential for genuine and irreparable harm to the Applicants if enforcement proceeds immediately but the appeal ultimately succeeds outweighs the temporary delay in the Plaintiffs' ability to enforce the Judgment. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Plaintiffs' interests are adequately protected by the continuing Injunction Orders, the Applicants' specific undertakings regarding identified assets, and the established fact that sufficient assets of value exceeding the Judgment Sum will remain available for enforcement if the appeal ultimately fails. Conditional Stay [61] The Plaintiffs have suggested that if the court is inclined to grant a stay, it should be a conditional stay requiring the Judgment Sum and costs to be paid to the Plaintiffs' Counsel's firm as stakeholders, to be maintained in an interest-bearing account pending determination of the appeal. They argue that this arrangement would adequately address any legitimate concerns the Applicants may have about the potential difficulty of recovering the Judgment Sum if they succeed on appeal. [62] The Plaintiffs contend that the Applicants have failed to engage meaningfully with this suggestion and have offered no alternative form of security. They argue that this failure undermines the credibility of the Applicants' expressed concerns and reinforces the impression that they are simply seeking to delay payment of a judgment that was properly rendered against them, rather than genuinely seeking to protect assets pending a legitimate appeal. [63] I recognise that conditional stays are commonly granted by Malaysian courts in cases involving monetary judgments, as evidenced by decisions such as Energiser Properties Sdn Bhd v Goh Chin Yang & Ors [2023] MLJU 2342 and Eric Yap v Foo Yong & Anor [2024] MLJU 3214. These authorities demonstrate that the practice of imposing conditions upon the grant of a stay, including requiring the deposit of all or part of the judgment sum with stakeholders, is well-established in our jurisprudence. However, the appropriateness and terms of a conditional stay must always be assessed carefully and judiciously in the context of the specific circumstances of each individual case. What may be appropriate and just in one case may not be appropriate or just in another, depending upon the nature of the judgment, the character and location of the assets involved, the grounds advanced for seeking the stay, and the overall balance of justice between the parties. [64] In this case, I find that a conditional stay requiring the deposit of the entire Judgment Sum would not be appropriate and would, indeed, be counterproductive. The imposition of such a condition would not address the Applicants' principal concern - which is that enforcement would necessitate the liquidation of significant and irreplaceable assets, resulting in irreparable harm. On the contrary, requiring the Applicants to deposit the entire Judgment Sum would effectively force them to liquidate the very assets they are seeking to protect, thereby causing the precise harm that justifies granting the stay in the first place. [65] The Applicants' reluctance to engage with the suggestion of a conditional stay requiring payment of the full judgment sum must be understood in this proper context. It is not necessarily an indication that they are simply seeking to delay payment for the sake of delay, but rather reflects the practical impossibility of complying with such a condition without suffering the very harm they seek to avoid. To require such payment would be to deny the stay in substance while purporting to grant it in form. [66] In Lim Kok Liam & Sons Sdn Bhd v Lau Choon Wan (Leong Yok Chin Intervener) [1996] 4 CLJ 256, Abdul Wahab Patail J (as His Lordship then was) addressed the relevance of the quantum of a judgment sum in determining applications for stay of execution. His Lordship's judgment warrants reproduction in some detail: “Also it is generally assumed that normally no stay will be given for an order for the payment of sum of money, where an undertaking to refund the payment may be a sufficient answer. The size of the payment relative to the size of the parties may well be a factor: if a payment is substantially all of the assets of the appellant a stay should be considered favourably. A stay may well be considered if the sum is very large and would necessitate the disposal of assets to comply with the order since the exercise may entail losses that could not be reversed later. It has been held that the likelihood of the dissipation of the asset by the applicant is a good reason not to order a stay. On the other hand, a stay ought to be granted if the plaintiff is a gambler or a wastrel and therefore likely to dissipate payment released to him, offering little hope of recovery in the event the appeal is successful. This amply shows why it is necessary to look closely at the facts of each case to assess the merits of the application; and to ensure the order is fair to both parties, a stay order need not be made simpliciter but may be made on terms.” [67] The wisdom of Abdul Wahab Patail J's observations resonates with particular force in the present case. His Lordship recognised that where a sum is very large and would necessitate the disposal of assets to comply with the order, a stay may well be considered, “since the exercise may entail losses that could not be reversed later”. This is precisely the situation that confronts the Applicants in the present case. The Judgment Sum of approximately RMB 221 million (equivalent to approximately RM 130 million) far exceeds the liquid assets available to any of the Applicants. Payment of this sum would inevitably require the forced liquidation of substantial illiquid assets, including the Mayfair Property and shares in private companies. The harm that would flow from such forced liquidation cannot be adequately remedied by the subsequent payment of damages or the return of the judgment sum should the appeal succeed. [68] Furthermore, imposing a condition requiring deposit of the judgment sum can have a stifling effect on the Applicants' ability to prosecute the Appeal. A conditional stay requiring the deposit of the entire Judgment Sum would require the Applicants to immediately liquidate substantial assets—the very harm that a stay is meant to prevent—simply to obtain temporary relief pending appeal. Such a condition would place the Plaintiffs in a more advantageous position than they occupied under the Judgment itself: rather than having to take enforcement steps to realise the judgment debt, they would have the full sum readily available as a precondition to the Applicants' right to seek appellate review. This effectively prioritises the Plaintiffs' interests in immediate payment over the Applicants' legitimate interest in preserving the status quo pending appeal. A stay application concerns the timing and manner of enforcement, and conditions imposed should be tailored to address genuine concerns about dissipation or frustration of enforcement, not to secure payment in a manner that renders the stay hollow. [69] I am fortified in my conclusion by the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Salim bin Ismail & Ors v Lebby Sdn Bhd (No. 1) [supra]. Although that case concerned a stay of a summary eviction order pending trial rather than a stay of execution of a monetary judgment pending appeal, the principle articulated by the Court of Appeal has broader application. The Court of Appeal held: “The subject-matter of this appeal from the applicants' point of view is their continued right to stay in their homes until their claims have been finally disposed of in a full trial. The destruction of that right cannot be adequately compensated with money. This is a special reason why a stay should be granted. Lebbey's counsel requested that the court only grant a conditional stay and require the applicants to deposit RM1m if a stay is to be granted. We did not think that such a request was realistic.” [70] The Court of Appeal recognised that where the loss that would be occasioned by enforcement cannot be adequately compensated with money, a stay should be granted, and that requiring a substantial deposit as a condition may not be realistic. Whilst the present case involves a monetary judgment rather than an eviction order, the underlying principle remains apposite: where enforcement would cause irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied by the subsequent payment of money, and where requiring payment of the judgment sum as a condition would itself cause that irreparable harm, such a condition should not be imposed. [71] The Plaintiffs seek to distinguish Salim on the basis that it concerned a summary eviction affecting long-term occupants pending trial, whereas the present case involves post-judgment enforcement following a fully contested trial on the merits where the Applicants were found liable for serious wrongdoing. Whilst this factual distinction is noted, it does not in my judgment detract from the underlying principle that informed the Court of Appeal's decision. [72] Having found that special circumstances exist warranting a stay of execution, and that the balance of justice clearly favours granting such a stay, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to impose the condition suggested by the Plaintiffs of requiring the deposit of the entire Judgment Sum. Such a condition would be counterproductive and would defeat the very purpose for which the stay is being granted. [73] However, I do consider it both necessary and appropriate to require the Applicants to abide by the specific undertakings they have offered, which will provide meaningful additional protection to the Plaintiffs without causing the irreparable harm that would result from requiring the deposit of the entire Judgment Sum. These undertakings, when combined with the continuing Injunction Orders at minutes 1, 2 and 3 of the Judgment, strike an appropriate balance between protecting the Applicants from irreparable harm pending appeal on the one hand, whilst safeguarding the Plaintiffs' legitimate interests as successful litigants on the other hand. [74] The specific undertakings offered by the Applicants are as follows: a) The 2nd Defendant (PVI) shall not deal with the Mayfair Property located at Flat B, 31st Floor, The Mayfair, 1 May Road, Mid-Levels, Hong Kong; b) The 6th Defendant (Maria) shall not deal with the sole share in the 2nd Defendant (PVI); and c) The 5th Defendant (Valarie), as the Personal Representative of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased's Hong Kong estate, shall not deal with the identified assets under the Hong Kong estate, including the Masterpiece property, bank deposits, and listed shares. [75] These are solemn undertakings given to this court by the Applicants. Breach of such undertakings would constitute contempt of court, attracting serious consequences including potential committal. Whilst the Plaintiffs are correct that such undertakings may present enforcement challenges across multiple jurisdictions, they are not without legal effect or practical value. Moreover, these undertakings operate in addition to, and not in substitution for, the continuing Injunction Orders granted at minutes 1, 2 and 3 of the Judgment dated 13.3.2025, which the Applicants have specifically stated they do not seek to stay. Those Injunction Orders continue to restrain the broader dissipation of assets and provide a general safeguard for the Plaintiffs' interests. The specific undertakings now offered supplement and reinforce those general restraints by identifying particular assets of substantial value that will be preserved pending the appeal. [76] The identified assets subject to the undertakings possess a cumulative value that significantly exceeds the Judgment Sum. The Mayfair Property, with a net value of approximately RMB 107 million after deducting the outstanding mortgage, represents nearly half of the Judgment Sum. When combined with the Masterpiece property (approximately RMB 24.5 million), bank deposits and shares of TSS (approximately RMB 13.39 million), and the shares in the 1st Plaintiff held by Yang Jin (valued at approximately HKD 105 million, equivalent to approximately RMB 95 million), the total identified assets substantially exceed the Judgment Sum. These assets will remain available for enforcement by the Plaintiffs in the event the appeal is ultimately dismissed. The Plaintiffs' legitimate interests as successful litigants are thereby adequately protected without requiring the Applicants to suffer the irreparable harm that would flow from immediate enforcement or from having to deposit the entire Judgment Sum as a condition of obtaining the stay. CONCLUSION AND ORDER [77] For the comprehensive reasons set out in detail above, I am satisfied that special circumstances exist warranting a stay of execution and/or enforcement of the Monetary Orders (minutes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Judgment), including the quantum of costs fixed on 10.4.2025, pending disposal of the Applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal. [78] In reaching this conclusion, I have carefully considered and weighed all the arguments presented by both parties, including those arguments that I have not found persuasive. The determination to grant a stay does not reflect any preliminary view on the merits of the appeal itself, which must be determined by the Court of Appeal on its own merits. Rather, this determination reflects a careful assessment that the particular circumstances of this case justify temporary suspension of enforcement pending appellate review. [79] I find that the Applicants have established special circumstances, particularly the substantial risk of irreparable harm through forced liquidation of significant and irreplaceable assets, including a longstanding family residence and shares in private companies that could not be adequately restored even if the appeal succeeds. I am also persuaded by the Applicants' legitimate concern that, due to the Plaintiffs' multinational corporate structure spanning multiple jurisdictions, enforcement proceeds could be dissipated across various jurisdictions, rendering recovery highly improbable should the appeal be allowed. [80] While I acknowledge the Plaintiffs' frustration at the allegations regarding Maria's conduct in relation to Villa 2 in China, I find these allegations to be taken out of proper context. Maria has consistently maintained that Villa 2 was given to her in its entirety by TSS during his lifetime, and the China Proceedings were properly commenced to determine her rights under Chinese law. The Injunction Orders restrained distribution of estate assets but cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit legal proceedings to determine whether an asset belongs to the estate in the first place. [81] The balance of justice favours granting a stay, particularly as the identified assets of value exceeding the Judgment Sum will remain available for enforcement should the appeal ultimately fail. The Plaintiffs' interests are adequately protected by the continuing Injunction Orders that prevent broader asset dissipation, the specific undertakings offered by the Applicants regarding identified assets, and the fact that interest will continue to accrue on the Judgment Sum to compensate for delay. [82] In balancing all competing interests, I find that the potential for irreparable harm to the Applicants if enforcement proceeds immediately but the appeal ultimately succeeds outweighs the temporary delay in the Plaintiffs' ability to enforce the Judgment. A conditional stay requiring deposit of the entire Judgment Sum would not be appropriate, as it would compel the very liquidation the Applicants seek to avoid and would effectively deny the stay in substance while purporting to grant it in form. [83] Accordingly, I make the following order: a) Stay of Execution: The execution and/or enforcement of minutes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Judgment dated 13.3.2025, including the quantum of costs fixed on 10.4.2025, is stayed pending disposal of the Applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal; b) Conditions of Stay: The stay is conditional upon the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Defendants abiding by the undertakings given by them in the Affidavits affirmed by the 6th Defendant for herself and on behalf of the 2nd, 5th, 13th and 14th Defendants on 14.4.2025 and 12.5.2025, that the identified assets shall remain available for enforcement by the Plaintiffs in the event the Appeal is dismissed: i) The 2nd Defendant shall not deal with the Mayfair Property located at Flat B, 31st Floor, The Mayfair, 1 May Road, Mid-Levels, Hong Kong, pending disposal of the Appeal; ii) The 6th Defendant shall not deal with her shares in the 2nd Defendant pending disposal of the Appeal; iii) The 5th Defendant, as the Personal Representative of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased's Hong Kong estate, shall not deal with the assets under Teh Soon Seng, Deceased's Hong Kong estate, including but not limited to: