Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2334
HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
LONGTIME COMMERCIAL SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
TIP TOP MEAT SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeals No: JB-12ANCC-5-07/2022]
A party admitting indebtedness through a Settlement Agreement cannot dispute the claim if there are no triable issues.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Civil Procedure 2012 – Order 14 – Summary Judgment – Defendants appealed against the summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for RM880,482.35 with interest at 1.5% per month from January 16, 2021, and costs – The court found no triable issues as the Defendants admitted the indebtedness through a Settlement Agreement and failed to challenge the evidence effectively. (Paras 1, 68)
(B) Settlement Agreement – The Defendants acknowledged the debt in a signed Settlement Agreement and failed to honour post-dated cheques, supporting the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claim. (Paras 66, 57)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff supplied the carcass and the Defendants utilized a credit facility, leading to outstanding payments acknowledged in a signed Settlement Agreement but not fulfilled. (Paras 2-12)
Findings of Court: The court established that the Defendants' silent admission of the debt and failure to dispute delivery validated the Plaintiff's claim for summary judgment. (Paras 21-24)
Issues: Whether the Defendants received the goods, the validity of the Settlement Agreement, and whether the Defendants acted as agents. (Paras 18-20, 31-34, 45-50)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Defendants' failure to present a credible defence, coupled with their admission of the debt in multiple documents, justified the summary judgment. (Paras 66, 68)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an Appeal by the Defendants against the decision of the Learned Sessions Judge on 30 June 2022 in allowing the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 for the sum RM880,482.35 with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on the said sum from 16 January 2021 till full settlement and cost RM4,000.00.
Background Facts
[2] Plaintiff sold and delivered "bangkai daging babi ('Carcass')" (hereinafter referred to as the "carcass") to the First Defendant.
[3] Pursuant to a Credit Application Form dated 2 October 2016, the First Defendant applied for credit facility for the said supply.
[4] The First Defendant received supply of the carcass by way of credit from time to time up the value of RM889,420.30.
[5] The supply was accompanied by Invoices and Delivery Orders served on the First Defendant.
[6] Six (6) Debit Notes were issued by the Plaintiff to the First Defendant totalling RM2,049.10.
[7] First Defendant made two (2) part payments totalling RM10,987.05 towards the outstanding sum leaving a balance of RM880,482.35 still due and owing to the Plaintiff.
[8] Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 1 December 2020 executed by the Second Defendant as Director of the First Defendant, both Defendants admitted unequivocally in the said Agreement owing the sum RM880,482.35 to the Plaintiff. Pursuant to this Agreement, the Second Defendant as the director of the First Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff the said outstanding sum by way four (4) instalments punctually.
"I, Ng Choun Long with (NRIC No: 880405-01-5031) and residential address at No 3, Jalan Limau Bali, Taman Pantai Baru, 83000 Batu Pahat, Johor, (the Debtor), hereby agree that as at the date hereof the sum owing to Tip Top Meat Sdn Bhd (Company No 303151-M) (the Company) with registered address at Lot PT 17840, Off Jalan Rawang- Batang Berjuntai, Mukim Serendah, 48200 Ulu Selangor, Selangor is Ringgit Malaysia Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Two and Sen Thirty Five (RM880,482.35) only (the Debt).
At the request of the Debtor, the Company has agreed to accept the settlement proposal to pay the Debt, in the manner and upon the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(1)...
(2) That the debt due and owing to the Company is in the amount of the Debt;
(3) That the Debtor is indebted to the Company for the Debt;
(4) To pay the instalment punctually;
(5) To settle the Debt until completion of the settlement by the Deadline given in the Settlement Proposal below;
(6)...
At any time if the Debtor fails neglects or refuses to pay any instalment as stated above before the Deadline,
(1) The Company shall be entitled forthwith to make demand on the Debtor for immediate payment of the Debt or any part thereof; and/or
(2) Without being required to give further notice to the Debtor, take such steps and exercise any other rights which the Company may have against the Debtor to recover the Debt or any part thereof."
[Emphasis Added]
[9] In this Agreement, Second Defendant was described as Debtor to the Plaintiff and admitted being indebted to the Plaintiff and agreed to settle the debt to the Plaintiff by way of instalments.
[10] The Settlement Agreement also contained specific details on how the sum RM880,482.35 to be paid as follows:
[11] This was followed by the Defendants depositing four (4) post-dated cheques as required pursuant to the Settlement Agreement with the Plaintiff.
[12] However, Defendants failed to honour the cheques and it was returned with the remark "account closed".
[13] Plaintiff demanded for the outstanding sum from the Defendants but yet the Defendants failed to settle the same.
[14] Thereafter Plaintiff made a demand vide their solicitors notice of demand dated 5 March 2021 to the Defendants but the Defendants still failed to settle the outstanding sums In the notice of demand, Plaintiff's solicitors referred to the default by the Defendants in honouring the four (4) post-dated
