The court affirmed that a plaintiff can obtain summary judgment if they establish a prima facie case and the defendant fails to raise any triable issues, as evidenced by contract terms and conduct.

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

(Enclosure 12 And Enclosure 13)

Introduction

[1] Before the court is the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment under O 14 Rules of court 2012 against the Defendants (Enclosure 12), as well as the Plaintiff's application under O 18 r 19(1)(b), (c) and/or (d) Rules of court 2012 to strike out the Defendants' counterclaim (Enclosure 13).

[2] Having considered the written submissions, affidavits, and oral arguments presented by both parties, I am of the view that both applications must be allowed. My grounds of judgment are as follows.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff, Emum Capital Sdn Bhd, is a trading company in building materials. The 1st Defendant, Great Concrete Sdn Bhd, is a customer of the Plaintiff.

[4] On or around 1 November 2018, the 1st Defendant applied for credit facility from the Plaintiff through a Credit Facility Application Form. In this form, the 1st Defendant's directors executed a Declaration agreeing, among others, to the following terms:

a) To settle all debts within the Credit Term from the dates of each delivery of goods;

b) To pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on all outstanding amounts due and payable to the Plaintiff, in the event of failure to pay within the credit period; and

c) That the Plaintiff shall cease to supply the goods on credit terms until all amounts due have been paid, if the 1st Defendant fails to settle any amount due within 30 days after the amount has become due.

[5] Subsequently, by letter dated 20 February 2019, the Plaintiff approved the 1st Defendant's Credit Facility Application with a credit term of 60 days and a credit limit of RM2,000,000.00. The letter also specified that interest at the rate of 1.5% per month would be charged on arrears in payment from the due date to the date of full settlement (both before and after judgment), and that the Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, suspend or revoke the credit limit and terms without prior notice.

[6] On 1 November 2018, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants executed a Letter of Guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff. Through this Guarantee Letter, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed, as principal debtors, the repayment of all monies and liabilities owed to the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant, including interest until the date of payment.

[7] Pursuant to the Credit Facility, the 1st Defendant placed orders for bulk cement with the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff duly supplied and delivered to the 1st Defendant. For each delivery, the 1st Defendant acknowledged receipt via the relevant delivery orders, and the Plaintiff subsequently issued invoices for payment. The invoices clearly stated that the payment term was 60 days and that interest of 1.5% per month would be charged on all overdue accounts.

[8] Despite several demands and reminders, the Defendants failed to fully settle the outstanding amounts owed to the Plaintiff. The last partial payment of RM20,894.40 was made on 5 April 2024, leaving a significant balance unpaid.

[9] By letter dated 30 May 2024, the 1st Defendant acknowledged that the Plaintiff had ceased supplying products but stated that the 1st Defendant had continued to make payments to reduce the outstanding indebtedness. The 1st Defendant also requested that the Plaintiff waive the late interest in a proposed settlement plan.

[10] The Plaintiff's solicitors issued a letter of demand dated 4 June 2024, demanding payment of the outstanding amount as of 30 April 2024, totalling RM1,273,538.00. The Defendants' solicitors replied by letter dated 6 June 2024, making a bare denial of the debt.

[11] The Plaintiff subsequently filed this suit, claiming RM1,307,291.00 (as of 31 July 2024), comprising the Principal Amount of RM750,003.00 and Late Interest of RM557,288.00, as well as continuing Late Interest accruing from 1 August 2024 until full settlement.

[12] The Defendants filed their Defence and Counterclaim on 16 October 2024, claiming that the Plaintiff breached the