Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 1687

HIGH COURT MALAYA GEORGETOWN
FSK MARKETING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CONCRETE ENGINEERING PRODUCTS BERHAD – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCC-79-11/2024]

Petitioner Advocates:Ang Khoon Cheong ,Respondent Advocate: Jack Cheng Siong Kiat

Summary judgment may be granted when there are no triable issues, and the burden is on the defendant to prove otherwise, especially in claims involving clear contractual terms and documented transactions.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14 - Summary judgment - Claim for goods sold and delivered - Plaintiff sought RM1,190,849.70 plus RM264,078.45 in interest - Defendant failed to establish any valid defense or triable issue - Court found no genuine disputes regarding the outstanding amounts or the imposition of late payment interest. (Paras 1, 3, 23, 57)

(B) Summary Judgment - The court may grant summary judgment where the issues are unarguable or not triable, especially when the facts are clear and undisputed. The burden shifts to the defendant to show triable issues. (Paras 17, 22)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sold construction materials to Defendant, with payments made in stages and outstanding amounts claimed in invoices. Defendant raised disputes regarding payment amounts but failed to substantiate claims of defects or agreements for part payments. (Paras 4, 10, 14, 32)

Findings of Court:
Defendant did not raise any valid defenses or triable issues, and the Plaintiff successfully established its claim through documented evidence. Summary judgment was granted for the Plaintiff. (Paras 23, 57)

Issues: Whether Defendant had a valid defense against the Plaintiff's claim, including disputes on payment amounts and late payment interest. (Paras 23, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Defendant's assertions were unsubstantiated and inconsistent with evidence, affirming that the Plaintiff's documentation constituted a binding contract, and late payment interest was enforceable as per industry standards. (Paras 25, 54)

Result: Summary judgment entered against the Defendant, with costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!)

What is the proper use of summary judgment under Rule of Court 2012 in a goods sold and delivered claim when the defendant has raised no valid triable issues?

What is the enforceability of late payment interest of 1.5% per month where documents (invoices, delivery orders, statements of account, and debit notes) evidence the terms and there was no timely objection by the defendant?

What are the rights of the plaintiff to rely on documentary evidence (invoices, purchase orders, delivery orders, statements of account, and debit notes) to establish a binding contract and bar new disputes in an accounting for goods sold and delivered?

Table of Content
1. summary judgment application details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background of goods sold. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. law on summary judgment standards. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. defendant's arguments against summary judgment. (Para 23 , 24)
5. contractual documents in sales transactions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. allegations of defects in goods. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. claims of oral agreements for payments. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
8. legitimacy of late payment interest. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
9. final judgment and order. (Para 57)

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] This is a claim by the Plaintiff ("P") for goods sold and delivered to the Defendant ("D"). P filed an application dated 4 February 2025 in Enclosure 10 for summary judgment against D. Enclosure 10 is made under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.

[2] P seeks summary judgment against D for the principal amount of RM1,190,849.70 and accrued interest of RM264,078.45 as at 30 September 2024. Additionally, further interest at the rate of 1.5 % a month on the sum of RM1,190,849.70, calculated from 1 October 2024 until a day prior to the date of entering summary judgment.

[3] On 23 April 2025, I allowed encl 10 and entered summary judgment against D. It is my finding that D does not have a valid defence against P '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] P carries on the business of trading in construction materials and engineering products. D is a manufacturer and supplier of prestressed spun concrete piles and poles.

[5] P had sold and delivered to D goods in the form of endplates since the year 2012 to three of D 's factories. Namely D 's factories at (i) Rawang, Selangor; (ii) Nilai, Negeri Sembilan; and (iii) Pasir Gudang, Johor.

[6] The sale and delivery of the goods by P to D at the three factories were evidenced by the purchase orders of D, and the invoices and delivery orders issued by P.

[7] The goods were sold and delivered by P to D on the term that a late payment interest of 1.5 % a month is chargeable on the outstanding amount owing. This term was stated in the invoices and delivery orders issued by P to D.

[8] D made payments in stages. The particulars of such payments are pleaded at para 13 of the statement of claim and deposed to at para 10 of P 's affidavit in support dated 4 February 2025 (Enclosure 11).

[9] Apart from the invoices and delivery orders evidencing the sale and delivery of the goods to D, P issued to D statements of account of the amount outstanding and debit notes of the amount of the late payment interest.

[10] After taking into account the payments made by D, P says that there is an amount of RM1,190,849.70 outstanding to be paid by D for the goods sold and delivered by P to D. There is also the amount of RM264,078.45, being the late payment interest calculated as at 30 September 2024.

[11] P made repeated demands for payment through its emails dated 10 June 2024, 6 August 2024 and 7 August 2024. Due to D 's refusal to make the payments in full, P engaged a law firm to issue notices of demand dated 12 August 2024 to D. The sums demanded included the late payment interest.

[12] Pursuant to letters dated 16 August 2024 and 3 September 2024, D queried the amount claimed by P in respect of the goods sold and delivered to the factory at Nilai, Negeri Sembilan and the factory at Pasir Gudang, Johor. But without giving any details as to the purported discrepancies in D 's record. There was no query on the amount claimed for the goods sold and delivered to the factory at Rawang, Selangor.

[13] P 's solicitors subsequently issued further notices of demand dated 24 September 2024 and 3 October 2024 together with the amended statements of account, to show that there was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document