Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5339
HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
AFFIN BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
COPRA MILL LEISURE WORLD SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCC-67-10/2024]
Summary judgment may be granted when defendants fail to raise triable issues or provide valid defenses against claims, particularly in banking disputes involving clear documentation.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14 - Summary judgment - Banking facility claim - Defendants defaulted on loan of RM 1,584,000.00 secured by guarantees - Court found no valid defense, allowing summary judgment - Defendants failed to raise triable issues or provide evidence against the certificate of indebtedness. (Paras 1-24, 41-44)
(B) Summary Judgment Principles - A judge must determine if issues are triable and not merely raise disputes - A bare denial is insufficient for a defense - The burden lies on the defendant to show triable issues. (Paras 15-20)
Facts of the case:
The Bank sought recovery of RM 1,541,981.69 from the Company and its guarantors due to non-repayment of a banking facility. The Bank had issued notices of demand, but the Defendants did not respond or make payments. (Paras 1-13)
Findings of Court:
Summary judgment was granted as the Defendants did not demonstrate a valid defense or raise triable issues against the Bank's claim. The certificate of indebtedness was upheld as conclusive evidence of the debt. (Paras 23-24, 41-44)
Issues: Whether the Defendants had a valid defense, whether material facts were concealed, and the validity of the certificate of indebtedness. (Paras 24-25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a mere denial is inadequate, and defendants must substantiate their claims with evidence. The certificate of indebtedness is deemed correct unless manifest errors are proven. (Paras 20, 41-44)
Result: Summary judgment entered against the Defendants, requiring them to pay RM 1,541,981.69 plus costs of RM 5,000.00 to the Bank.
Introduction
[1] This is a recovery action by the Plaintiff ("Bank") against the Defendants for the amounts due to the Bank in connection with a banking facility that was granted by the Bank to the 1st Defendant ("Company"). The 2nd Defendant ("D2") and the 3rd Defendant ("D3") are sued as guarantors. They had guaranteed the repayment of the banking facility granted by the Bank to the Company.
[2] The Bank filed an application dated 14 December 2024 in encl 8 for summary judgment against the Defendants. Enclosure 8 is made under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.
[3] On 11 March 2025,1 allowed encl 8 and entered summary judgment against the Defendants. It is my finding that the Defendants do not have a valid defence against the Bank's claim, let alone any triable issue. I am satisfied that this is a plain and obvious case where summary judgment ought to be granted. Here are the grounds of my decision.
Background Facts
[4] The Bank's claim against the Defendants is for monies due and owing under a term loan (banking facility) granted to the Company for the sum of RM 1,584,000.00 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Bank's letter of offer dated 7 December 2016.
[5] After the Company's acceptance of the terms and conditions in the Bank's letter of offer, the Bank and the Company then entered into a bank facility agreement dated 15 June 2017.
[6] The banking facility was secured by the Company through the following:
(a) an assignment of sale and purchase agreement dated 15 June 2017;
(b) a letter of set off (first party) dated 15 June 2017; and
(c) a charge over cash deposit (first party) dated 15 June 2017.
[7] By way of security for the banking facility given, the Company vide the aforesaid assignment of sale and purchase agreement dated 15 June 2017, assigned to the Bank a property located at Bandar Perai Jaya, Perai Pulau Pinang.
[8] Individual guarantees dated 15 June 2017 were also given by D2 and D3 to the Bank, jointly and severally guaranteeing repayments to the Bank.
[9] The Company defaulted in the repayment of the banking facility to the Bank. Thereafter, at the request of the Company, the Bank via a letter dated 6 November 2020 ("said letter") considered the request of the Company. The Bank agreed to review the instalment proposal of the Company on a without prejudice basis. The Bank reserved its rights to continue with legal action and recover the full outstanding liability due to it in the event of default.
[10] Subsequently, the Company did not keep up with its promise and defaulted in the repayments.
[11] As such, the Bank exercised its rights in accordance with the terms and conditions of the aforementioned charge over cash deposit (first party) and letter of set off (first party) dated 15 June 2017. The Bank uplifted and liquidated the charged fixed deposit with interest in the sum of RM 71,527.95 to settle part of the Company's debt.
[12] The Bank via its solicitors issued a notice of demand dated 26 September 2023 and a notice of recall dated 8 December 2023 to the Defendants, recalling the banking facility given to the Defendants.
[13] The Defendants were still defaulting. Hence, the Bank instructed its solicitors to issue a notice of demand / notice of recall dated 5 September 2024 to the Defendants. The Bank recalled the term loan (banking facility) given to the Company. The Bank demanded from the Defendants jointly and severally the payment RM 1,541,981.69 as at 31 August 2024, together with interest accruing thereon at the rate of 3.5 % per annum above the Bank's base lending rate on monthly rest basis from 1 September 2024 till full settlement.
[14] No payment was forthcoming. Thus, the Bank commenced this action against the Company as the borrower and D2 and D3 as the individual guarantors for recovery of the total amount outstanding and due under the banking facility provided by the Bank to the Company.
The Law On Summary Judgment
[15] Summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 ma
