Al Amin Strategic Commodity Sdn Bhd v Duta Nilai Holdings Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-262-06/2020)

This is the Defendant’s application by way of a Notice of Application dated 25 November 2024 in Enclosure 127 seeking an Order that all further proceedings in this action be stayed pending the disposal of Civil Appeal No. W-02(NCC)(W)-294-02/2023 between Duta Nilai Holdings Sdn Bhd and Ismail bin Othman and others (“Appeal 294”) before the Court of Appeal.

I dismissed the application.

The Defendant appealed against the dismissal of the Defendant’s stay application. Pending the hearing of the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant had filed a motion for stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal. This Court was informed, during the first trial date on 17 January 2025, that the parties recorded a consent order at the Court of Appeal for the trial in the High Court to be stayed. I then vacated the trial dates.

There are three related suits involving the parties. All these suits relate to disputes concerning Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares (“RCPS”) issued to the Plaintiff.

In the present suit, the Plaintiff’s claim is premised upon a breach of the terms of the RCPS issued to the Plaintiff.

In the second suit, which is Suit 244, the Defendant herein is the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff is the Defendant with a counterclaim. Suit 244 was filed by the Defendant for an order that the RCPS was issued without consideration and the Defendant sought to nullify the issuance of the RCPS.

There is yet a third suit. This is Suit 554. In this suit, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for breach of the terms of the RCPS issued to the Plaintiff.

The only suit that has been heard is Suit 244. This Court heard and dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim on 14 February 2023. The Defendant herein (who was the Plaintiff in Suit 244) has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Parties are in agreement that the Defendant’s Defence in both Suit 262 and Suit 554 is a mirror of the Defendant’s claim in Suit 244.

The Defendant’s sole ground in seeking a stay is that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Appeal 244 will have a critical impact on the defence presented in resisting the claim in the present suit. Hence, it will be pointless for the trial of this action to be conducted before the decision is delivered. The Defendant submits that the prejudice to the Defendant should the trial proceed outweighs any prejudice occasioned to the Plaintiff should the trial be stayed.

The Plaintiff contends that Suit 244 was filed first followed by Suit 262 and finally Suit 554.

Parties had agreed and consented that Suit 244 proceed first by full trial and that Suit 262 be deferred to be heard until after Suit 244. Parties had also agreed and consented that Suit 554 be deferred pending the disposal of Suit 244. As Suit 244 has been disposed, the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is being inconsistent in agreeing to proceed with Suit 554 and yet seek to stay Suit 262.

The trial of this action was initially scheduled from 11 March 2024 to 14 March 2024. The records reflect that the Defendant filed an application to stay the proceedings herein pending the disposal of Appeal 244. This was dismissed but my predecessor gave liberty to the Defendant to refile an application for stay of proceedings. The trial dates from 11 March 2024 to 14 March 2024 were vacated and new trial dates scheduled from 22 July 2024 to 25 July 2024. These dates were also vacated and new trial dates were then scheduled from 12 November 2024 to 14 November 2024. These dates too were vacated and trial rescheduled to 24 April 2025, 25 April 2025, 29 April 2025 and 30 April 2025. Once again, these dates were vacated as my predecessor was elevated to the Court of Appeal and the trial rescheduled from 17 November 2025 to 19 November 2025.

The action commenced in June 2020. Some five years later, for one reason or another, the trial has yet to commence.

I agree with the submission of the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s action in seeking to stay this trial is somewhat incongruous with the stand taken with regard to Suit 554. If, as the Defendant says, the appeal in Suit 244 will have an impact on this suit, it should have the same impact in Suit 554.

The Defendant submitted only that the outcome of the appeal will have an impact on the way the defence is to be conducted. I find that submission unsatisfactory because no explanation was offered as to how exactly the outcome will impact the conduct of the defence.

Even if I agree with this submission, I took into consideration that the trial will not be disposed before the appeal which is fixed for decision on 23 January 2026. Parties are at liberty to tailor their case, or even if the trial has concluded, to craft their submissions, taking into account the decision of the Court of Appeal.

In this regard, I find that my decision in refusing the stay application to be consistent with the decision in Ling Peek Hoe v Golden Star [2020] 6 MLJ 689 which is a case relied on by the Defendant. This is what the Court held: “In determining whether proceedings should be stayed, the concerns of the court itself have to be taken into the balance. Decisions as to listing, and decisions as to which cases are to be heard at any particular time are matters for the court itself and no party to a claim can demand that it be heard before or after any other claim. The court will want to deal with claims before it as expeditiously as is consistent with justice. But, on the other hand, it is unlikely to want to waste time and other valuable resources on an exercise that may well be pointless if conducted too soon. If, therefore, the court is shown that there will be, or there is likely to be, some event in the foreseeable future that may have an impact on the way a claim is decided, it may decide to stay proceedings in the claim until after that event. It may be more inclined to grant a stay if there is agreement between the parties. It may not need to grant a stay if the pattern of work shows that the matter will not come on for trial before the event in question. The starting point must, however, be that a claimant seeks expeditious determination of his claim and that delay will be ordered only if good reason is shown.”

The English Court in R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 168 (IAC) stated as follows: a) every claimant is entitled to expect expeditious judicial adjudication. The strength of this expectation will be calibrated according to the individual litigation equation; b) the judicially imposed delay flowing from a stay order requires good reason; c) judicial choreography whereby one case is frozen awaiting the outcome of another is justified for example where the assessment is that the latter will have a critical impact upon the former; and d) great caution is to be exercised where a stay application is founded on the contention that the outcome of another case will significantly influence the outcome of the instant case.

As I stated earlier, in the present case, save for the bare averment in the affidavit of the Defendant, the Court was not shown that there would be, or was likely to be, some event in the foreseeable future that may have an impact on the way the claim is decided. I also considered the fact that the Defendant had agreed to proceed with the trial of this action and that of Suit 554 upon disposal of Suit 244. The Defendant had in fact proceeded with the trial of Suit 554.

Every delay occasioned by an adjournment has a detrimental cascading effect on the administration of justice. It impacts other litigants in that the Court will have to vacate other trial dates to fix the trial of a case filed much earlier in time. All this through no fault of the other litigants who have diligently followed the timetable fixed by the Court. Unless the trial Court is convinced to a conviction that an appeal awaiting disposal will have a material bearing on the outcome of the trial such that proceeding with the trial will result in a waste of time and resources, the practice of seeking a stay of the trial purely on the basis that there is an appeal pending ought to be discouraged.

Having weighed the above factors, I decided against the granting of the stay, resulting in the Defendant’s application being dismissed. Dated the 18th day of December 2025 -sgd- ……………………………………………………………………… MUHAMMAD ADAM @ EDWARD BIN ABDULLAH Judicial Commissioner High Court (Commercial Division NCC 4) High Court of Kuala Lumpur In the Federal Territory, Malaysia Counsel for the Plaintiff : Renu Zechariah together with Cheryl Kwan Messr. Rosley Zechariah Counsel for the Defendant : Alex Tan together with Hing Hong Shen Messr. Wong Kian Kheong

Ling Peek Hoe v Golden Star [2020] 6 MLJ 689 2. R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the