Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3408
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AFFIN BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PCS VISION SDN BHD & ANOR (ENCL 8) – Respondent
[Writ Summons No: WA-22NCC-225-04/2024]
Summary judgment granted when defendants fail to establish triable issues or provide sufficient particulars to support their allegations against the plaintiff's claim.
Headnote:(A) Application for Summary Judgment - Federal Court ruling established that the burden of proof to show a triable issue lies with the defendant - A mere general denial of a debt or bare allegations without detailed proof does not suffice - If the defendant fails to show any triable issue, summary judgment may be granted in favor of the plaintiff. (Paras 13-16)
(B) The court emphasized the necessity for defendants to condescend upon particulars in their affidavits, providing specific defenses rather than general allegations or denials. (Paras 19-24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a bank, initiated proceedings against the defendants for non-payment of an overdraft and Letters of Credit facilities. The 2nd defendant is a guarantor for these loans. After demanding repayment, the plaintiff applied for summary judgment when the defendants failed to respond adequately.
Findings of Court:
The court held there were no triable issues presented by the defendants, leading to the granting of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff along with costs.
Issues: The court addressed whether the defendants presented any triable issues regarding the debt, the validity of certificates of indebtedness, and amendments to loan documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that allegations made by the defendants did not meet the threshold of establishing a triable issue, particularly in light of existing certificates.
Result: Application for summary judgment allowed with costs of RM1,500.00.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary judgment application process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim and defendants' background (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. defendants' arguments against summary judgment (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. burden of proof in o 14 applications (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 5. assessment of alleged triable issues (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
Summary Judgment
Introduction
[1] This is a summary judgment application dated 5 September 2024 [Enclosure 8] filed by the plaintiff.
[2] I heard the application on 10 March 2025. Learned counsel for both the plaintiff and defendants were present. However, only the plaintiff's counsel filed written submission. The defendants' counsel didn't file any written submission to oppose the summary judgment application.
[3] After reading the pleadings, affidavits and the plaintiff's counsel's written submission, I allowed the summary judgment with costs of RM1,500.00 on the ground there are no triable issues.
[4] The defendants have appealed to the Court of Appeal on 4 April 2025. These are my Grounds of Judgment.
Facts of the case
[5] The plaintiff is a bank. The 1st defendant is a customer of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is a shareholder, director and guarantor for loans taken by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff.
[6] The plaintiff sued the two defendants for non-payment of an overdraft and Letters of credit facilities. The details of these facilities are set out in the Statement of Claim from paras 4 to 9.
[7] The 2nd defendant is a guarantor for these two facilities taken by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff evidenced by a Guarantee dated 18 April 2022. The details of the Guarantee are set out in the Statement of Claim at para 10.
[8] By a letter dated 16 January 2024, the plaintiff demanded for the repayment of these facilities. The defendants failed to repay.
[9] The plaintiff filed a suit and applied for summary judgment.
Affidavit filed by the defendants to resist the summary judgment application
[10] The defendants filed one affidavit via the 2nd defendant dated 18 October 2024 to resist the summary judgment application. [See encl 10].
[11] In this short affidavit of 3 pages, the defendants made bare allegations without proof.
[12] The defendants-
i. Asserted the Certificates of Indebtedness are without detailed calculations and the defendants are not able to verify the same. [paragraph 5 affidavit].
ii. Asserted they were not allowed to amend the loan documents and the Guarantee prior to signing. [paragraph 8 affidavit].
iii. Deny owing any debt, and if a debt is owed, the sum claimed is excessive. [paragraphs 9 - 10 affidavit].
iv. Asserted the interest claimed is excessive. [paragraph 11 affidavit].
The law
In an O 14 application the burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants
[13] The Federal Court in Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying & Anor ; ; ["Cempaka Finance"] has held that in an O 14 application, the burden is not on the plaintiff to prove his case. Steve Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) said at p 551:
Quite clearly, the Court of Appeal has put the burden on the plaintiff to prove his case in an O 14 application. With respect, that cannot be the correct proposition of law. In an application under O 14, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the following conditions: that the defendant must have entered appearance; that the statement of claim must have been served on the defendant; that the affidavit in support must comply with r 2 of O 14 in that it must verify the facts on which the claim is based and must state the deponent's belief that there is no defence to the claim. (See Supreme Leasing Sdn Bhd v. Dior Enterprises & Ors ; .) Once those conditions are fulfilled, the burden then shifts to the defendant to raise triable issues. The law on this is trite.
[Emphasis Added]
[14] The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants. It is not enough for the defendants to make bare allegations or give a mere ge
