A party who admits liability cannot later dispute the claim, validating summary judgment.

[25] In the case of Tetuan Kumar, Jaspal, Quah & Aishah v. Far Legion Sdn Bhd, [2003] 6 MLJ 95, the Court said:

"... a case is not suitable for summary determination pursuant to Order 14, if the Affidavit contains contradictory evidence which cannot be resolved except by trial."

[26] In the case of Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail & Ors, 1992 MarsdenLR 798 ; [1992] 1 CLJ Rep 14; [1992] 1 CLJ 627, the Supreme Court said:

"The determination of whether an issue is or is not triable must necessarily depend on the facts or the law arising from each case as disclosed in the affidavit evidence before the Court".

D. Analysis And Finding Of This Court

Order 14, Rule 1 Has Been Met By The Plaintiffs

[27] After perusing the cause papers, this Court agreed with the Plaintiff that the basic requirements of O 14, r 1 of the Rules of 2012, to enter summary judgment have been met, in the sense that the Amended Statement of Claims has been served on the Defendant, and that the Defendant has entered appearance and the action herein is not of the prohibited category as set out in O 14, r 1 (2).

[28] The Plaintiffs' Affidavit in Support (encl 12) has also met the requirements of O 14, r 2(1).

[29] That being the case, the Plaintiffs have therefore established a prima facie case and is now entitled to a judgment. The burden then shifts to the Defendant to show cause why summary judgment should not be entered, as found in the authorities of National Company for Foreign Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd , 1984 MarsdenLR 58 ; [1984] 1 CLJ Rep 283; [1984] 2 CLJ 220 (FC), Supreme Leasing Sdn Bhd v. Dior Enterprise & Ors; [1990] 2 MLJ 36 and Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying (trading as KH Trading) & Anor, 2005 MarsdenLR 191 (FC).

[30] After perusing the cause papers and hearing submissions by both parties, this Court had made a finding that the Defendant failed to satisfy the Court why summary judgment shouldn't be entered against them and that they failed to prove that their defence is meritorious and that there are triable issues.

[31] Against the backdrop of the admission of the Defendant regarding the debt, the following should be noted:

[32] To qualify the basic requirements of O 14 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 ie summary judgment, the Plaintiffs have met such requirements, in the sense that the Amended Statement of Claim has been served on the Defendant, the Defendant has entered appearance and the action herein is not of the prohibited category as set out in O 14, r 1(2).

[33] The Plaintiffs' Affidavit in Support (encl 12) has also met the requirements of O 14 r 2(1).

[34] The Plaintiffs have therefore established a prima facie case and is entitled to summary judgme nt. The burden then shifts to the Defendant to show cause why summary judgment should not be entered. This was clearly borne out in the following authorities: National Company for Foreign Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd , 1984 MarsdenLR 58 ; [1984] 1 CLJ Rep 283; [1984] 2 CLJ 220 (FC), Supreme Leasing Sdn Bhd v. Dior Enterprise & Ors; [1990] 2 MLJ 36 and Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying (trading as KH Trading) & Anor, 2005 MarsdenLR 191 (FC).

[35] After perusing the cause papers and after hearing submissions by parties, this Court ruled that the Defendants failed to put a successful defence and raise a triable issue, because of the following reasons:

(a) The Defendant did not dispute that the Invoices for the aforementioned sum of RM3,200,000.00 were issued to the Defendant (see Exhibit "P-3" to encl 14);

(b) The Defendant did not dispute that on 18 April 2018, the Plaintiffs through JJBS issued a written demand to the Defendant for payment of the said debt of RM3,200,000.00;

(c) There is also no documentary evidence be