Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1988
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
STYLO INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCC-86-02/2024]
The court upheld that summary judgment can be granted when the plaintiff meets procedural requirements, and the defendants fail to raise genuine triable issues, affirming the enforceability of contractual obligations despite alleged variations or external hardships.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14 - Summary judgment application - Plaintiff seeks recovery of outstanding sums against defendants for default on banking facilities - Defendants claim triable issues exist - Court determines whether procedural requirements are met and if defendants raised genuine disputes - Plaintiff fulfilled requirements and established a prima facie case; burden shifts to defendants to show cause. (Paras 8-13)
(B) Guarantee - Variation of contract - Court finds that variation does not discharge guarantor's obligations; contractual terms allow for unilateral variation by lender without prior notice to guarantor. (Paras 20-30)
(C) COVID-19 impact - Court acknowledges pandemic effects but finds no legal basis for frustration of obligations; defendants did not apply for loan restructuring during the period. (Paras 31-39)
(D) Service of demand letters - Court finds letters issued according to contractual requirements; non-receipt does not negate validity of service. (Paras 41-46) (E) Quantum of claim - Court finds no manifest error in the Certificate of Indebtedness; terms of agreement establish conclusive evidence of debt. (Paras 47-61)
Findings of Court:
Summary judgment granted against defendants with costs awarded.
Result: Application allowed.
Introduction
[1] Enclosure 9 pertains to the plaintiffs application for summary judgment pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff, CIMB Bank Berhad, seeks to recover outstanding sums under banking facilities extended to the first defendant, Stylo International Sdn Bhd ("D1"), with the second defendant, Nancy Yeoh Ai Suan ("D2"), as guarantor. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have defaulted in their repayment obligations, and there are no triable issues that merit a full trial. The defendants, however, opposes the application, contending that a triable issue exists and warrants further examination. The key question before this Court is whether the defendants have successfully raised a bona fide triable issue or whether the plaintiff has established a clear entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Background Facts
[2] D1 was a customer of the plaintiff bank, having sought financing for its event management business. Based on a letter of offer dated 13 November 2017 and a Facility Agreement dated 5 December 2017, the aggregate sum RM1,043,988.00 was availed, which comprises of the following facilities:
(a) Term Loan Facility amounting to RM648,988.00 to refinance a double storey shophouse from Alliance Bank Berhad inclusive of legal fee of RM21,888,00 and valuation fee of RM2,100.00; and
(b) Overdraft Facility amounting to RM395,000.00 for working capital requirement.
(collectively referred to as the 'Banking Facilities').
[3] Pursuant to a Joint and Several Guarantee dated 5 December 2017, D2, a director and shareholder of D1 stood as a guarantor to DTs performance under the said Banking Facilities.
[4] The plaintiff has accordingly disbursed the said Banking Facilities to D1, and D1 has utilized the same. Flowever, D1 subsequently failed, neglected, and/or refused to make the overdue monthly payments. Consequently, the plaintiff, through Messrs Kuah, Lim, Chin & Ooi, issued the defendants with a demand dated 12 December 2023 claiming the arrears of RM26,392.39 for the Term Loan Facility (5-month overdue) and the excess of RM114,117.08 for the Overdraft Facility (37-month overdue). (See Exhibit LCL-4 of encl 10 and Exhibit LCL-7 of encl 15).
[5] As the defendants made partial payment of RM500.00 for the Overdraft Facility, and RM4,965.00 for the Term Loan Facility, the plaintiff has through Messrs Kuah, Lim, Chin & Ooi, accepted the defendant's repudiation and issued a notice of termination dated 4 January 2024 and claimed for the outstanding amount of RM1,193,498.38 as at 3 January 2024 (See Exhibit LCL-5 of Enclosure 10 and Exhibit LCL-8 of encl 15); which comprises the following:
[6] A Certificate of Indebtedness certifying the debt due was issued by the plaintiff pursuant to the relevant clauses under the Facility Agreement as well as the Joint and Several Guarantee (See Exhibit LCL-1 of encl 10); wherein the overdue sum comprises the following:
[7] On 6 February 2024, the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendants by filing a Writ and Statement of Claim. On 17 April 2024, the plaintiff applied for summary judgment under O 14 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules") against the defendants (Enclosure 9). Two earlier hearing dates ie on 24 September 2025 and 5 December 2025 were vacated due to administrative reasons, wherein this case was subsequently transferred to this Court. Upon considering the cause papers and submissions filed I had on 11 April 2025 allowed the entry of final judgment against the defendants with costs of RM4,000.00.
Issues
[8] The application in encl 9 addresses the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirement of summary judgment application ('Procedural Requirement'); and
(ii) Whether the defendants have successfully raised genuine disputes of material fact that require a trial. ('Defendants Showing Cause).
Issue 1: Procedural Requirement
[9] The first issue before the Court is whether the nec
