1. ) Umar Bin Ali Bashah @ Ali Bashah v 1. ) Mujur Zaman Sdn. Bhd. (WA-22NCvC-575-08/2021)

UMAR BIN ALI BASHAH @ ALI BASAH (bagi pihak dirinya dan semua anggota Jawatankuasa Bertindak Projek Terbengkalai Alam Mutiara Dan Alam Utama [seperti yang disenaraikan dalam Bahagian A di Jadual 1 bagi Perjanjian Penyelesaian antara persatuan tersebut, Defendan Pertama dan Ke-2 dan Paragon Pinnacle Sdn Bhd bertarikh 11.1.2016 dan yang mewakili peneroka-peneroka yang disenaraikan dalam Lampiran 1 dan 2 bagi Perjanjian tersebut termasuk 987 peneroka yang berhak mendapat unit perumahan])

LOGHAN LAW OFFICE (suatu firma) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

1.

2.

3.

ABRAHAM OOI & PARTNERS (suatu firma) 14/11/2025 12:53:21 WA-22NCvC-575-08/2021 Kand. 251 … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (TINDAKAN ASAL)

1.

LIPUTAN CANGGIH SDN BHD … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

TETUAN DAIM & GAMANY (didakwa sebagai suatu firma guaman)

LOGHAN LAW OFFICE (didakwa sebagai suatu firma guaman)

HADRONS CONSULTING SDN BHD … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (TUNTUTAN BALAS) RULING [Encl. 248 – Preliminary Objection]

The Plaintiffs in the Main Action and the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Counter Claim filed the Preliminary Objection vide letter dated 6.10.2025 (Encl. 248) pursuant to the Notice of Application (Encl. 246 filed on 29.9.2025) by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Main Action and the Plaintiffs in the Counter Claim to recuse the Judge from hearing Suit 575 and to expunge paragraph 38 in the

The Plaintiffs in the Main Action and the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Counter Claim filed the Preliminary Objection vide letter dated 6.10.2025 (Encl. 248) as follows: “In light of the legal effect of the Order of this Court dated 13.8.2025 (Encl. 244), whether the Notice of Application dated 29.9.2025 (Encl. 246) cannot be filed by the 1st and 2nd Defendant in the Original Action or be heard and disposed of by this Court, and ought to therefore be dismissed in limine with costs to the Plaintiffs in the Original Action.”

The Plaintiffs in the Main Action referred to the Atkins Encyclopaedia of Court Forms in Civil Proceedings Second Edition Vol. 37 1995 Issue (London Butterworths) pp. 193 – 195 para. 6 Effect of stay as follows: “An order for stay is, therefore, always potentially capable of being removed, since by its nature it merely restricts or curtails or, to use the expression, “freezes” the action and any further proceedings in it. Apart from an application to remove the stay, the only other step that can be taken by a party in an action in which a stay has been imposed is an application to dismiss the action on the ground, for example, of default of or non-compliance with any condition subject to which the stay was imposed.” see Empson v. Smith [1966] 1 QB 426 per Sellers J.

In the said Preliminary Objection, the Plaintiffs’ counsel further states as follows: “Memandangkan kesan pengekalan bantahan awal tersebut kami aman memohon suatu penentuan (ruling) berkenaan bantahan tersebut sebelum Mahkamah memberi apa-apa arahan (directions) berkenaan Lampiran 246. Kami turut mengambil pendirian bahawa berdasarkan alasan yang sama, Mahkamah tidak boleh memberikan apa-apa arahan berkenaan Lampiran 246 termasuk membantah kepada bicara substantive lampiran tersebut oleh Hakim yang lain.” Submissions by 1st and 2nd Defendants. (Encl. 249)

The Plaintiffs had filed an application on 18.4.2025 (Encl. 226) to, inter alia, vacate the trials dates for this Suit 575 originally fixed from 26 – 28.8.2025 and that the proceedings in Suit 575 be stayed pending the outcome of two appeals at the Court of Appeal (Appeal 146 and 147).

On 13.8.2025, this Court allowed in part Encl. 226 and granted such orders to vacate the trial dates and to stay proceedings of Suit 575 pending the outcome of Appeal 146 and 147) as reflected in Encl. 244 and Grounds of Judgment (Encl. 245).

The 1st and 2nd Defendants submits that Encl. 244 does it reflect that parties are barred from filing any interlocutory applications in the primary foundation for Encl. 244 was to vacate trial dates pending the appeals at the Court of Appeal, and not to bring an end to Suit 575. The Plaintiffs taking part in proceedings in Suit 575 after 13. 8.2025

On 26.8.2025, when the matter was called for Case Management for Suit 575 on 26.8.2025 the Court gave directions for the cause papers to be filed before the next Case Management on 21.1.2026. The 1st and 2nd Defendants’ Authorities (Encl. 250)

The Court of Appeal in the case of Arkin v. Marshall & Anor. [2020] EWCA Civ 620 at para. 51 referred to the case of David Grant v. Dawn Meats UK [2018] EWCA Civ 2212 per Coulson LJ at para. 18 decided as follows: “a stay operates to ‘halt’ or ‘freeze’ the proceedings’'. In general terms, no steps in the action, by either side, are required or permitted during the period of the stay. In general terms, no steps in the action, by either side, are required or permitted during the period of the stay. When the stay is lifted, or the stay expires, the position as between the parties should be the same as it was at the moment that the stay was imposed. The parties (and the court) pick up where they left off at the time of the imposition of the stay.”

The submissions by the Plaintiffs when relying on Atkin's Encyclopaedia of Court Forms In Civil Proceedings must now be read subject to paragraph 51 in Arkin, supra.

The 1st and 2nd Defendants referred to the case of Clarion Housing Association Limited v. Crest Nicholson Operations Limited [2023] EWHC 620 as follows: “59. The claimant submits that Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) Limited is not authority that service of proceedings during the currency of a stay is a nullity; it is only authority that stay periods are discounted when reckoning the four month time limit for service of a claim form (contrary to the contention of the unsuccessful and opportunist defendant in that case).

The claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal had clarified in Arkin v. Marshall [2020] 1 WLR 3284 at [38] and [50] to [51], in the context of the automatic stay of possession proceedings during the Covid pandemic, that it “may be going too far to say that the parties to a stayed action are not permitted to take any steps at all” (per Sir Geoffrey Vos C, as he then was, giving the judgment of the court at [51]).

In my judgment, the claim form and particulars of claim were validly served on Friday 9 December 2022 at 1749 when they were delivered to the defendant’s registered office by courier. I accept the submission that Coulson LJ did not in Grant v. Dawn Meats (UK) Ltd intend to preclude service of originating process during the period of the stay.

What is “not permitted” to borrow Coulson LJ’s words, during a currency of a stay is the enforcement of compliance with procedural obligations in the proceedings, including agreed steps. A party may not apply to the court during a stay and may not during a stay complain of a missed deadline that expired during the stay. Nor may it complain after the stay has expired of a missed deadline that would have expired but for the stay but has not yet expired as extended by the stay. The stay does not nullify any step taken during its currency.”

As a result, and in any event, the Order dated 13.8.2025 (Encl. 244) does not bar the filing of applications such as Encl. (wherein complains such as expungement and recusal ought to be done soonest possible from the time the grounds to make them arise) and therefore Encl. 246 is not a nullity.

The Plaintiffs referred Atkin's Encyclopaedia of Court Forms In Civil Proceedings and the relevant part at p. 194 para. 6 reads as follows: “But in the case of a stay, the action still subsists, and the order operates to impose a restriction upon further proceedings being taken in that action. Indeed the word ‘stay’ in an order of the court should no longer be treated in itself as the final termination of the proceedings, and as the equivalent of a dismissal or discontinuance, even if the order be made by consent of the parties, since proceedings which are stayed still remain in being and remain pending, so that, for example, a person or party may apply to be added as a defendant after the stay of proceedings by consent.”

The 1st and 2nd Defendants submits that the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Objection (Encl. 248) must be dismissed with costs to be paid forthwith. Court’s analysis

The Court had on 13.8.2025 (Encl. 245) decided on Encl. Plaintiffs’ application to strike out Encl. 212 Amended Defence of 1st and 2nd Defendants (Main Action) and Plaintiffs (Counterclaim) and Stay of Proceedings as follows:

the amended defence and counter claim (Encl. 212) is not vexatious or an abuse of process of the Court;

there is no basis to strike out the 1st and 2nd Defendants pleadings;

the Plaintiffs’ prayer (b) that judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and the counterclaim be dismissed is disallowed;

all proceedings in the Main Claim and Counterclaim be stayed pending disposal of the

consequently, the trial dates of 26 – 28.8.2025 are to be vacated and rescheduled. New trial dates to be fixed after 12.1.2026 (hearing of Court of Appeal).

The Plaintiffs’ counsel referred to paragraph 2 of Encl. 244 (Order in respect of Encl. 226) given on 13.8.2025 as follows: “1. Bahawa Tarikh-tarikh perbicaraan keseluruhan tindakan ini pada 26 hingga 28.8.2026 dilapangkan.

Bahawa kesemua prosiding di sini berkenaan Tindakan Asal dan Tuntutan Balas digantung sehingga pelupusan Rayuan-Rayuan Sivil W-02(NCvC)(W)-146- 01/2025 dan W-02(NCvC)(W)-147-01/2025 di Mahkamah Rayuan.

Kos ditanggung oleh pihak masing-masing.”

Having heard oral submissions by both parties and having perused the Preliminary Objection (Encl. 248) filed by the Plaintiffs, the Written Submissions (Encl. 249) filed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and Authorities and in the light that all proceedings in the Main Claim and Counterclaim be stayed pending disposal of the Civil Suits 215/227 in the Court of Appeal, the Court makes the following ruling in the circumstances of the

that the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Objections is hereby allowed;

consequently, the 1st and 2nd Defendants application in Encl. 246 to recuse the Judge from hearing Suit 575 and to expunge paragraph 38 in the Grounds of Judgment (Encl. 245) is hereby struck off; and

each party to bear their own costs.

The case details for Encl. 217 (Amended Statement of Claim) and Encl. 212 (Amended Defence and Amended Counter Claim) are as follows:

case management date fixed for 21.1.2026; and

trial dates fixed from 19 – 22.10.2026 (4 days). Dated: 11 November 2025 sgd. ………………………………………….. (EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Aston Paiva & Haikal Akiemy bin Hamzah Messrs. Vazeer Akbar Majid & Co. Petaling Jaya. Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Paari Perumal & Puthan Perumal Defendants: Messrs. Perumal Brothers Kuala Lumpur.