The court affirmed the enforceability of guarantees despite claims of duress, highlighting the need for conclusive evidence to support such allegations.

A. Introduction

[1] The plaintiff is claiming outstanding sums pursuant to two facility agreements and guarantees entered into between the plaintiff and the respective defendants. The defendants in turn filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaration that the facility agreements are void.

[2] Since the commencement of this action, the 1st and 7th defendants were wound-up and the 3rd and 5th defendants were adjudicated bankrupt. As such, the trial proceeded only in respect of the 2nd, 4th and 6th defendants.

[3] I allowed the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the 2nd, 4th and 6th defendants' counterclaim, for the reasons set out below.

B. Background Facts

[4] The plaintiff granted the following facilities to the 1st defendant:

a. A Murabahah financing facility of up to RM20,000,000 ("1st Facility"), by way of a letter dated 1 August 2013, a master facility agreement dated 10 September 2013, and revised and supplemental letters of offer dated 20 April 2015, 23 May 2016 and 12 April 2017 (collectively, the "1st" Facility Agreement").

b. A Murabahah financing facility of up to RM5,000,000 ("2nd Facility"), by way of a letter dated 12 February 2016 and a master facility agreement dated 20 May 2016 (collectively, the "2nd Facility Agreement").

The 1st Facility and the 2nd Facility are collectively referred to as the "Facilities", while the 1st Facility Agreement and the 2nd Facility Agreement are collectively referred to as the "Facility Agreements".

[5] The Facilities are secured by debentures executed by the 1st defendant, corporate and personal guarantees executed by the 2nd to 7th defendants, and deeds of assignment.

[6] It is undisputed that a total of RM20,000,000 was disbursed under the 1st Facility, while RM4,989,014.20 was disbursed under the 2nd Facility.

[7] The 2nd, 4th and 6th defendants are guarantors of the Facilities. They had signed the following:

a. a joint and several guarantee dated 21 April 2015 for the 1st Facility ("1st Guarantee"); and

b. a joint and several guarantee dated 20 May 2016 for the 2nd Facility ("2nd Guarantee").

The 1st Guarantee and the 2nd Guarantee are collectively referred to as the "Guarantees".

[8] The 1st defendant failed to repay amounts owing under the Facilities, and the plaintiff took steps to recover the amounts owing. This included cancelling and recalling the Facilities, demanding the amounts owing and exercising its rights under the debentures to appoint a receiver over the 1st defendant.

[9] With amounts still outstanding, the plaintiff filed this claim against the defendants. As the 1st and 7th defendants had been wound-up and the 3rd and 5th defendants had been adjudicated bankrupt since the commencement of this claim, the trial of this matter proceeded only in respect of the 2nd, 4th and 6th defendants.

[10] A few days before trial, solicitors for the 2nd, 4th and 6th defendants, Messrs. Ho-Noecker & Pragasam applied to discharge themselves as solicitors I allowed the Discharge Application on the condition HNP informs the 2nd, 4th and 6th defendants that the court requires them to appoint representation immediately, and that trial will continue as scheduled.

[11] On the first day of trial, the 2nd, 4th and 6th defendants remained unrepresented. They sought an adjournment of the trial on the ground that they required more time to appoint solicitors to represent them. In considering their request for an adjournment, I took the following considerations into account:

a. During a previous