Summary judgment may be granted when the defendant fails to raise triable issues, and mere denials without substantiation do not constitute a valid defense.

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] This is a recovery action by the Plaintiff ("Bank") against the Defendants for the amounts due to the Bank in connection with a banking facility that was granted by the Bank to the 1st Defendant ("Company"). The 2nd Defendant ("D2") and the 3rd Defendant ("D3") are sued as guarantors. They had guaranteed the repayment of the banking facility granted by the Bank to the Company.

[2] The Bank filed an application dated 11 December 2024 in Enclosure 11 for summary judgment against the Defendants. Enclosure 11 is made under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.

[3] On 11 March 2025, I allowed encl 11 and entered summary judgment against the Defendants. It is my finding that the Defendants do not have a valid defence against the Bank'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] The Bank's claim against the Defendants is for monies due and owing under a term loan (banking facility) granted to the Company for the sum of RM 3,481,000.00 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Bank's letter of offer dated 10 December 2013.

[5] After the Company's acceptance of the terms and conditions in the Bank's letter of offer, the Bank and the Company then entered into a bank facility agreement dated 18 March 2014.

[6] The banking facility was secured by the Company through the following:

(a) a debenture (1st party) dated 18 March 2014;

(b) a general assignment of rental proceeds dated 18 March 2014; and

(c) a deed of assignment dated 18 March 2014.

[7] By way of security for the banking facility given, the Company vide the aforesaid deed of assignment dated 18 March 2014, assigned to the Bank a property located at Prangin Mall, Komtar Pulau Pinang.

[8] Individual guarantees dated 18 March 2014 were also given by D2 and D3 to the Bank, jointly and severally guaranteeing repayments to the Bank.

[9] The Company defaulted in the repayment of the banking facility to the Bank. Thereafter, at the request of the Company, the Bank via a letter dated 6 November 2020 ("said letter") considered the request of the Company. The Bank agreed to review the instalment proposal of the Company on a without prejudice basis. The Bank reserved its rights to continue with legal action and recover the full outstanding liability due to it in the event of default.

[10] Subsequently, the Company did not keep up with its promise and defaulted in the repayments.

[11] The Bank via its solicitors issued a notice of demand dated 26 September 2023 and a notice of recall dated 8 December 2023 to the Defendants, recalling the banking facility given to the Defendants.

[12] The Defendants were still defaulting. Hence, the Bank instructed its solicitors to issue a notice of demand / notice of recall dated 5 September 2024 to the Defendants. The Bank recalled the term loan (banking facility) given to the Company. The Bank demanded from the Defendants jointly and severally the payment RM 2,023,191.98 as at 31 August 2024, together with interest accruing thereon at the rate of 3.5 % per annum above the Bank's base lending rate on monthly rest basis from 1 September 2024 till full settlement.

[13] No payment was forthcoming. Thus, the Bank commenced this action against the Company as the borrower and D2 and D3 as the individual guarantors for recovery of the total amount outstanding and due under the banking facility provided by the Bank to the Company.

The Law On Summary Judgment

[14] Summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 may be granted where the issue is unarguable or not triable. Especially where the issue raised is solely a question of law or where the facts are clear and undisputed.

[15] The Supreme Court in Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors 1992 MarsdenLR 286 ; 1992 MarsdenLR 798 ; 1 MLJ 400 at 408 said:

"Under an O 14 application, the duty of a judge does not end as soon as a fact i