T Selventhiranathan J:

The plaintiffs appealed videencl. (21) to the judge in chambers ("the appeal") against the dismissal by the Senior Assistant Registrar ("the registrar") on the 27 March 2000 of their application for summary judgment against the defendants under O. 14 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (also "the O. 14 application") videencl. (14). However, while the appeal was pending, the first defendant was wound up by an order of the High Court in Malaya at Johor Bahru pursuant to a petition filed by a third party. The first defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the winding-up order but since that appeal had not been heard and disposed of, the plaintiffs have not withdrawn the present action against the first defendant but have been holding it in abeyance until the determination of that appeal. However, pending the outcome of that appeal, the appeal in encl. (21) was proceeded with against the second to the fifth defendants. In this judgment, any reference to "the defendants" shall mean a reference to all five defendants or the second to the fifth defendants, as the context may require.

Pursuant to two lease agreements and eight hire-purchase agreements (collectively "the agreements" or separately "the lease agreements" and "the hire-purchase agreements") entered into between OCBC Finance Berhad, the predecessor company of the plaintiffs, and the first defendant, certain goods and equipment (collectively "the equipment") for use in the first defendant's poultry-farming business were leased and/or let and hired out, as the case may be, to the first defendant upon the terms and conditions contained in the agreements (exhs. "TKJ4" and "TKJ5" to encl. (13)). For convenience, references to the plaintiffs hereinafter will encompass the predecessor company where necessary.

The second to the fifth defendants executed guarantees and indemnities ("the guarantees") in favour of the plaintiffs whereby they undertook to guarantee the due performance of the terms and conditions of the agreements by the first defendant (exh. "TKJ6" to encl. (13)).

Unfortunately the first defendant subsequently defaulted in the payment of sums falling due under the agreements, resulting in their termination by the plaintiffs viaexh. "TKJ7" to encl. (13) and a demand for payment of the said sums from the second to the fifth defendants as guarantors viaexh. "TKJ8" to encl. (13). The defendants' failure to so pay led to the filing of the claim herein against each of the defendants followed by the O. 14 application. The registrar however found that there were triable issues based on the allegations raised by the defendants. Being dissatisfied with his decision, the plaintiffs appealed and submitted that the said allegations were unfounded and untenable and ought to have been rejected by the registrar and summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs should have been entered instead.

When arguing the appeal before me for the first time, the learned counsel for the defendants, Encik Mathews George, conceded that the defendants were in breach of the agreements and stated that the defendants did not know how the various sums claimed by the plaintiffs were arrived at and stated further that the defendants were agreeable to concede this point if the plaintiffs could provide detailed calculations of the same. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Cik WM Lee, undertook to provide the calculations within two weeks therefrom, and the court made an order accordingly. Upon Encik Mathews George concluding his submissions, the appeal was adjourned for continuation on another date pending the detailed calculation of the accounts pertaining to the sums claimed, as requested by the defendants.

At the adjourned hearing on 23 January 2001, the plaintiffs were granted an extension of time to put in an affidavit to indicate the current status of the plaintiffs' claim, additionally reflecting the sale of the equipment during the preceding week and the r