Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1390
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AMBANK (M) BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
SD IMPEX SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-556-08/2023]
A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for summary judgment, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove any triable issues, which must be supported by evidence.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14 - Summary Judgment - The plaintiff sought summary judgment for breaches of financial facilities by the defendant, who failed to pay amounts due. The court found no triable issues raised by the defendants and upheld the validity of the Certificate of Indebtedness. (Paras 9, 17, 28)
(B) Summary Judgment - The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, shifting the burden to the defendant to demonstrate a valid defense. The court emphasized that mere allegations without evidence do not suffice to contest a summary judgment. (Paras 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff provided multiple financial facilities to the 1st defendant, who breached the terms by failing to make payments, leading to the plaintiff recalling the facilities. The defendants' claims of errors in the Certificate of Indebtedness were unsupported by evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found the defendants did not raise credible defenses and upheld the Summary Judgment Application.
Issues: The court addressed whether the defendants had raised any triable issues regarding the Certificate of Indebtedness and the validity of the claims against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, and the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to contest the claims, thereby justifying summary judgment.
Result: Summary judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff.
A. Introduction
[1] The plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment against the defendants ("Summary Judgment Application").
[2] The court allowed the application, for the reasons explained below.
B. Background Facts
[3] The plaintiff's claim against the defendants arose from breaches by the 1st defendant of the terms and conditions of the following financial facilities:
a. A term loan facility of RM4,903,000.00 ("TL1 Facility"), a term loan facility of RM1,500,000.00 ("TL3 Facility"), and overdraft facilities of RM260,000.00 ("OD1 Facility") and RM500,000.00 ("OD2 Facility"), granted by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant by way of:
i. A letter of offer dated 23 January 2018;
ii. Supplementary letters of offer dated 23 March 2018, 23 April 2018, 17 July 2018 and 18 March 2019;
iii. A letter of offer dated 30 April 2019;
iv. Supplementary letters of offer dated 25 July 2019, 6 August 2019, 21 August 2019, 16 June 2022 and 7 July 2022; and
v. A facilities agreement dated 4 June 2018.
b. A term loan facility under the "Working Capital Guarantee Scheme-Extension" of RM927,452.24 ("TL2 Facility"), granted by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant way of a letter of offer dated 8 August 2018, supplementary letters of offer dated 18 March 2019, 16 June 2022 and 7 July 2022 and a facilities agreement dated 30 November 2018.
The TL1 Facility, the TL2 Facility, the TL3 Facility, the OD1 Facility and the OD2 Facility are collectively referred to as the "Facilities".
[4] The 2nd to 4th defendants guaranteed the repayment of the Facilities by the 1st defendant, by way of the following documents:
a. For the 2nd defendant, guarantees and indemnities dated 4 June 2018 and 30 November 2018;
b. For the 3rd defendant, a guarantee and indemnity dated 26 August 2019; and
c. For the 4th defendant, guarantees and Indemnities dated 4 June 2018 and 30 November 2018.
These guarantees and indemnities are collectively referred to as the "Guarantees and Indemnities".
[5] The 1st defendant breached the terms and conditions of the TL1 Facility, the TL2 Facility and the TL3 Facility by failing to pay monthly instalments and to regularise its accounts with the plaintiff in a satisfactory manner.
[6] The 1st defendant's default under the TL1 Facility, the TL2 Facility and the TL3 Facility triggered an event of default under the OD1 Facility and the OD2 Facility, pursuant to a clause on cross-default under the facilities agreement dated 4 June 2018.
[7] Consequently, the plaintiff recalled and terminated the Facilities, by a letter dated 14 July 2023.
[8] The plaintiff filed this action to recover the amounts outstanding under the Facilities. The plaintiff thereafter filed the Summary Judgment Application, based on the ground that the defendants have not raised any triable issue in respect of the plaintiff's claim.
C. Principles Of Summary Judgment
[9] The Summary Judgment Application is filed under O 14 r 1 of the Rules of court 2012 (" ROC "), which provides that:
"(1) Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the court for judgment against that defendant."
[Emphasis Added]
[10] Order 14 r 2 of the ROC provides for the manner in which an application for summary judgment shall be made. Order 14 r 2(1) requires an application to be supported by an affidavit verifying the facts on which the claim is based, and stating that in the deponent's belief, there is no defence to that claim.
[11] Once the preliminary requirements under O 14 rr 1 and 2 of the ROC have been met by a plaintiff, namely:
a. the statement of claim has been served on the defendant;
b. the defendant has entered appearance; and
c. the
