Summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no real prospect of defense; even a single triable issue necessitates a full trial.

JUDGMENT

Norhanum Hassan M:

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff, T-One Motor Works Sdn Bhd, under O 14 of the Rules of 2012, seeking summary judgment against the Defendant, Yap Pui Har. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has no valid defence, and the matter does not warrant a full trial.

[2] The claims involve two sums: RM72,500.00 paid via cheques for services allegedly not provided and RM1,409.00 transferred via DuitNow for a phone purchase that still needs to be completed. The Defendant denies liability, asserting that these payments were connected to a third party, Yap Chee Ming.

Background

[3] The Plaintiff claims that RM72,500.00 was paid to the Defendant over a defined period for services under an implied contractual arrangement. However, the Defendant allegedly failed to render any services, constituting a total failure of consideration. The Plaintiff further claims that RM1,409.00 was transferred for purchasing a company phone, which the Defendant neither procured nor refunded, amounting to unjust enrichment.

[4] The Defendant acknowledges receipt of both sums but disputes the Plaintiff's assertions, contending that the payments were linked to a third party, Yap Chee Ming, rather than to any obligation owed by the Defendant personally. This defence was introduced during the affidavit stage, supported by Exhibits YPH-1 and YPH-2.

Issues For Determination

[5] Whether the defendant was obligated to provide services or return the sums received.

[6] Whether the defendant's actions amount to a total failure of consideration or unjust enrichment.

[7] Whether the defendant has raised bona fide triable issues that necessitate a trial.

Legal Principles

[8] Order 14 permits summary judgment only when the Court is satisfied that the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim. Case law such as Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors; 1992 MarsdenLR 798 ; 1992 MarsdenLR 286 emphasises that even a single triable issue justifies refusing summary judgment. In Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying & Anor; 2005 MarsdenLR 191 ; 2006 MarsdenLR 3040 ; , it was held that cases involving complex disputes or allegations require a full trial for proper examination.

[9] Total failure of consideration, as recognised in Giga Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v. Yip Chee Seng & Sons Sdn Bhd & Anor; 2015 MarsdenLR 343 ; ; [2015] 6 AMR 765 , occurs when payments made for services or goods are not fulfilled. Similarly, as highlighted in Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 , unjust enrichment arises when funds are retained without fulfilling their intended purpose.

Analysis And Decision

[10] The RM72,500.00 claim:

The Plaintiff claims that payments were made for services that the Defendant failed to provide, supported by evidence of cheque transactions. The Defendant disputes this, asserting that the payments were related to a third party, Yap Chee Ming. While the Defendant's narrative lacks robust evidence, it raises factual disputes regarding the purpose of the payments. The absence of a formal agreement further complicates the Plaintiff's case, leaving room for differing interpretations.

[11] The RM1,409.00 claim:

The Plaintiff provided evidence of the DuitNow transfer, alleging unjust enrichment. The Defendant has not substantively addressed why the funds were retained or why the phone was not procured. While the Plaintiff's claim appears straightforward, the Defendant's broader defence introduces ambiguity that warrants trial-level scrutiny.

[12] Procedural concerns:

The Defendant's reliance on a third-party narrative introduced during the affidavit stage is procedurally irregular. However, procedural flaws do not negate the Court 's obligation to consider whether substantive issues exist. In this case, the Defendant's explanation raises questions about the underlying transactions that cannot be dismissed outright.

Given the unresolved factual disputes and the absence of a clear agreement, the Court f