Axis Megalink v Far East Mining: Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Axis Megalink Sdn Bhd and Mr. Lee Kien Han applied for a stay of execution of a judgment and costs order against them in favor of Far East Mining Pte Ltd. The High Court of Singapore, General Division, granted a conditional stay, requiring Axis to pay the outstanding damages and costs to FEM's solicitors as stakeholders pending Axis's appeal. The court balanced the interests of both parties, considering the possibility of Axis being unable to recover the paid amounts if the appeal succeeds.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Stay of execution of the Suit 342 Orders, conditional on Axis paying to FEM’s solicitors to hold as stakeholder, within two weeks, the remainder of the damages and costs arising from the Suit 342 Orders, less the remainder of the $200,000 presently held by FEM’s solicitors.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Stay of execution application. The court granted a conditional stay of execution pending appeal, balancing the parties' interests.

1.7 Decision Date

21 February 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Kien Han	Defendant in Counterclaim	Individual	Conditional Stay Granted	Partial	Koong Len Sheng of David Lim & Partners LLP Joshua Ang Zhao Neng of David Lim & Partners LLP Koh Choon Guan Daniel of Eldan Law LLP
Axis Megalink Sdn Bhd	Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim	Corporation	Conditional Stay Granted	Partial	Koong Len Sheng of David Lim & Partners LLP Joshua Ang Zhao Neng of David Lim & Partners LLP Koh Choon Guan Daniel of Eldan Law LLP
Far East Mining Pte Ltd	Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim	Corporation	Conditional Stay Granted	Partial	Koh Swee Yen of WongPartnership LLP Felicia Soong Wanyi of WongPartnership LLP G Kiran of WongPartnership LLP Chng Zi Zhao Joel of WongPartnership LLP
Lim Eng Hoe	Defendant in Counterclaim	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
Chong Wan Ling	Defendant in Counterclaim	Individual	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Goh Yihan	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Koong Len Sheng	David Lim & Partners LLP
Joshua Ang Zhao Neng	David Lim & Partners LLP
Koh Choon Guan Daniel	Eldan Law LLP
Koh Swee Yen	WongPartnership LLP
Felicia Soong Wanyi	WongPartnership LLP
G Kiran	WongPartnership LLP
Chng Zi Zhao Joel	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

Axis applied for a stay of execution of the judgment and costs order in HC/S 342/2021.
The dispute centered on an engagement letter dated 16 August 2016.
Axis claimed US$2m as an arranger fee under the Engagement Letter.
FEM counterclaimed against the applicants for misrepresentations in relation to Mr Lee’s ownership of Axis.
The court dismissed Axis’s claim and allowed FEM’s counterclaim, awarding $10,210 in damages.
The court ordered the applicants to pay FEM costs fixed at $393,287.02.
Axis’s solicitors had undertaken to hold $200,000 as security for FEM’s costs.

5. Formal Citations

Axis Megalink Sdn Bhd v Far East Mining Pte Ltd, Suit No 342 of 2021 (Summons No 3163 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 47

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-08-16	Engagement Letter dated
2022-10-01	Trial took place
2023-02-01	Trial took place
2022-11-10	SRN delisted
2024-01-12	Hearing of the application
2024-02-22	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome: The court granted a conditional stay of execution.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053
  - [1991] 2 SLR(R) 869
  - [2019] SGHC 248
  - [2015] 5 SLR 1032
  - [2001] SGHC 19
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 15
  - [2015] SGHCR 20
  - [2015] 3 SLR 665
  - [2014] EWCA Civ 1108
  - [2001] EWCA Civ 2065
  - [2017] 2 SLR 12
  - [2023] SGHC(I) 19
  - [2023] 8 MLJ 586
  - [2004] EWHC 1606 (Ch)
  - [2017] EWHC 1902 (Comm)
  - [1990] 1 SLR(R) 772
  - [2010] SGHC 174
  - [2019] 3 SLR 453

8. Remedies Sought

Stay of execution of judgment and costs order

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

Mining
Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution.
Lee Sian Hee (trading as Lee Sian Hee Pork Trader) v Oh Kheng Soon (trading as Ban Hon Trading Enterprise)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 869	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court should ensure that any appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory.
Taylor, Joshua James and another v Sinfeng Marine Services Pte Ltd and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 248	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the applicant bears the burden to show why there were “special circumstances” which justified the order of a stay.
Naseer Ahmad Akhtar v Suresh Agarwal and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1032	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the applicant bears the burden to show why there were “special circumstances” which justified the order of a stay.
Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another	High Court	Yes	[2001] SGHC 19	Singapore	Cited for the principle that what may amount to “special circumstances” is a “question of fact in each case” that “must be something distinctive and out of the way”.
Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd v LKM Investment Holdings Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 15	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where there is a likelihood of the judgment creditor becoming insolvent before the disposal of the appeal, then a stay may be granted.
PT Sariwiguna Binasentosa v Sindo Damai Shipping Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHCR 20	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a mere offer to pay the judgment sum plus interest into court pending the appeal would not justify the grant of a stay.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and others v Celestial Nutrifoods Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 665	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the task of a court when considering a stay application pending an appeal is to “hold the balance between the interests of the parties (pending the hearing of [the] appeal) to avoid any prejudice to any of the parties”.
Sunico A/S and others v Revenue and Customs	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] EWCA Civ 1108	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the risk of injustice if the stay is refused is that the appeal may be stifled, ie, the appellant may be prevented from bringing its appeal if the judgment creditor is allowed to enforce the judgment.
Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] EWCA Civ 2065	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the risk of injustice if the stay is refused is that the appeal may be stifled, ie, the appellant may be prevented from bringing its appeal if the judgment creditor is allowed to enforce the judgment.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 12	Singapore	Instructuve in providing a broader conceptual analysis on when a court should grant a conditional stay.
Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC(I) 19	Singapore	Cited for granting a conditional stay on similar terms.
Ahmad Suhairi bin Mat Ali v CIMB Bank Bhd and another	Malaysian High Court	Yes	[2023] 8 MLJ 586	Malaysia	Axis referred to this case as a supporting authority. The court declined to follow the approach taken in Ahmad Suhairi.
AMBA Carpet Services v Mowe	English High Court	Yes	[2004] EWHC 1606 (Ch)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that time could be another relevant factor in the granting of a conditional stay – where it is known that the appeal will be quickly disposed of, a court may be more inclined to grant a conditional stay since the money will be locked up for a relatively short time
The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine	English High Court	Yes	[2017] EWHC 1902 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a court might take into account factors such as any failure to comply with previous court orders, the risks of ancillary negative consequences if a stay were to be imposed (eg, payment of a large sum might potentially entitle other creditors to accelerate existing liabilities), and the appellants’ willingness to give assurances to the respondents’ satisfaction
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	High Court	Yes	[1990] 1 SLR(R) 772	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the cases are relatively clear that the presence of strong grounds for appeal is not by itself a reason for granting a stay
Strandore Invest A/S and others v Soh Kim Wat	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 174	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the cases are relatively clear that the presence of strong grounds for appeal is not by itself a reason for granting a stay
NK Mulsan Co Ltd v INTL Asia Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 453	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the cases are relatively clear that the presence of strong grounds for appeal is not by itself a reason for granting a stay

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Stay of execution
Conditional stay
Special circumstances
Stakeholder
Engagement Letter
Arranger fee
Reverse takeover
Beneficial owner
Financial statements
Insolvency

15.2 Keywords

stay of execution
appeal
civil procedure
singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Stay of Execution	90
Conditions to be imposed	80
Civil Procedure	75
Judgments and Orders	60
Appellate Practice	50
Contract Law	30
Breach of Contract	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Appeals
Litigation