Stay of Execution under Special Circumstances: A Comparative Analysis between Malaysia and United Kingdom

Joslyn Yeo Yi Tian, Nur Izzati Mohd Naim, Shahrul Mizan Ismail

Abstract


In Civil Litigation, a stay of execution is like a pause button used by the applicant to restrain the execution of the court judgement from being carried out by the opposing party. Fundamentally, for an application for a stay to succeed, the applicant must show special circumstances to justify the grant of a stay. This article will identify and comparatively appraise the procedures to apply for a stay of execution in Malaysia and the United Kingdom. This article will also examine the principles and factors considered by the courts in Malaysia and the United Kingdom in granting a stay of execution. In light of the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, this article will also study whether the courts consider COVID-19 as a special circumstance, warranting a stay of execution. In order to achieve these objectives, the methodology used by the researchers is pure legal research and comparative analysis. The findings of this article show that Civil Courts in both Malaysia and the United Kingdom have unqualified discretion to determine the application for a stay of execution. In addition, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of special circumstances to justify the grant of a stay of execution in Malaysia and the United Kingdom. The courts will only grant a stay if there are special circumstances.


Keywords


Civil procedure; stay of execution; special circumstances; COVID-19; United Kingdom.

Full Text:

PDF

References


AIA Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2022] 8 MLJ 544.

Ang Sue Khoon v Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang [2016] 11 MLJ 516 referred to Siglin V Choules BC200106081.

Atkins v Great Western Railway Co. (1886) 2 TLR 400.

Broseley London Ltd v Prime Asset Management Ltd (Trustee of the Mashel Family Trust) [2020] EWHC 944 (TCC).

Che Wan Development Sdn. Bhd. v Co-operative Central Bank Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 40.

Chubb Insurance (M) Bhd & Ors v Competition Commission [2021] 11 MLJ 189.

Civil Procedure Rules.

Clifton Securities Ltd v Huntley [1948] 2 All ER 283.

Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd edition, vol. 17.

Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edition, reissue, vol. 37.

Halsbury’s Laws of Malaysia - Civil Procedure (Volumes 7(1) and 7(2)).

Harris v Ruhby Portland Cement Co Ltd [1955] 2 All ER 500.

Hyams v Plender [2001] 2 All ER 179.

Kerajaan Malaysia v Tangkas Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] MLJU 1470.

Kodilinye, G. & Kodilinye, V, Commonwealth Caribbean Civil procedure (Second), 2005, Publishing Limited, Cavendish, p 230.

Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd v. Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257.

Lee, J. 2020. The development of Erinford injunctions in Malaysia. University of Malaya Law Review. https://www.umlawreview.com/lex-in-breve/the-development-of-erinford-injunctions-in-malaysia [27 April 2022].

Leong Poh Shee v. Ng Kat Chong [1966] 1 MLJ 86.

Monk v Bartram [1891] 1 QB 346.

Moody v Steggles [1879] 12 Ch D 454.

Ravichanthiran a/l Ganesan v Lee Kok Sun (menjalankan perniagaan milikan tunggal dengan nama dan gaya sebagai L & L Brother Engineering Services) & Ors and another [2021] MLJU 1876.

Re Kong Thai Sawmill [1976] 1 MLJ 131.

Rules of Court 2012.

Serangoon Garden Estates Ltd v Ang Keng [1953] MLJ 116.

Syarikat Berpakat v Lim Kai Kok [1983] 1 MLJ 406.

Tan Tien Seng & Anor v Grobina Resorts Sdn Bhd (No 3) [2006] 5 MLJ 372.

Teh Yih Shen [1986] 2 MLJ 65.

Teow Guan & Ors V Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 3 MLJ 598.

The Annot Lyle [1886] 11 PD 114.

Toppan Holdings Ltd and another v Simply Construct (UK) LLP [2021] EWHC 2110 (TCC).

Zul Rafique & Partners. 2021. covid-19 pandemic: special circumstances warranting a stay of execution? https:// www.zulrafique.com.my/article-sample.php?id=1752 [27 April 2022].


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.